*****OFFICIAL 2022 Border War Hoops and HATE Thread

[Chiefspants]

Alright y’all! We got a game this Saturday. The reigning National Champion Jayhawks are as self-righteous as ever and coming to Columbia, where the Tigers look like they could have their best coached team since the Obama administration. Self is still figuring out his rotations (to a painful degree), and in Columbia anything can happen.

This thread can also be used to talk football and how this rivalry is oh so dead, which is why a bowl game that is not happening has arguments spilling over into Mizzou threads, KU threads, college football threads, and twitter and facebook wars all over my feed.

Join me and let’s all talk about how this game doesn’t matter anymore and all angrily ask why I’m missing asterisks in the thread title.

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

You act like there’s a perfect system of determining a champ in CFB. It’s insanely flawed. Slightly better now with a playoff, but still very flawed. You’re relying on a committee of goofs to determine the four best teams in the nation. Who’s to say that a one loss SEC team is better than an undefeated or one loss team from another league? They give the top SEC teams the benefit of the doubt. You’re telling me their opinions carry a lot more weight than ranking systems? Why?

There’s isn’t a perfect system to determining a champion in ANY college sport. Basketball continually expands the field letting in more teams further watering down the field and allowing for ‘Cinderella’ teams to make deep runs in the tourney. And you hardly ever end up with the best 4 teams in college basketball in the Final Four. Heck, in just the last 5 years alone, we’ve seen two 11 seeds make the Final Four. A middling UCLA team that farted around all season in the PAC 12, barely squeezed into the field and then got hot at the right time. We’re they one of the 4 best college basketball teams in the country in 2021? Of course not. Did that matter? Nope.

And what about you guys? As a usual top 1-4 seed, you’ve been knocked out by the likes of Bucknell, Bradley, Northern Iowa, etc. Were they better teams than Kansas? Was their overall body of work for the whole season stronger than yours?

And as far as the college football playoffs and deserving to be there, this is what I know. It’s been going on for 8 years now. 4 times a Big 12 team made the final 4 (Oklahoma). Each time they went one and done. Didn’t matter if they were playing the SEC, ACC or Big 10. They promptly got booted out (usually in blowout fashion) And now your most consistent and strongest team year to year overall is leaving the Big 12 for the SEC (along with Texas), further shifting the balance of power towards the SEC.

The Big 12 is a superior conference in basketball, but they don’t measure up in football. On field results speak for themselves. And no ratings system is gonna convince anyone (besides Big 12 homers) otherwise.

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Preseason polls are just a killer with such a short season.

You can rank UNC #1 in CBB and if they kind of suck, they'll be gone in a few weeks or at the very worst when they hit non-con.

Football though, you assume 4 B1G and 6 SEC teams deserve to be ranked in the preseason and everything from that point forward is based on that ranking. Preseason rank Michigan State #15 for some reason. And then Purdue beats them in week 2.... well shit, Purdue must be pretty damn good, let's rank them! And then Purdue loses to unranked Indiana the following week... well shit, Indiana must be pretty decent, right?!?

Add to it a team like Ohio State not doing shit all season, but keeping their rank only because Michigan was highly ranked for reasons... or Bama being #1 by not playing anyone.

Not to say those teams aren't good, but it's all based on those assumptions made before the season started, and it's a huge domino effect that never really sorts itself out.

Of course, there's no great way around it, as you have to start somewhere... and they've tried computer rankings and what not.

I've always wanted 8 teams in a playoff and could see 12, where the top 4 get a bye and the other 8 are basically play-in games. Beats the current format of "assume Bama, Georgia, and OSU are amazing every year".

Bama, Georgia, and OSU usually ARE the best teams every year. You know why? Because they get the best recruits. Look at how many Top 50 guys those programs pull in every year. Best talent usually equates to the best teams, just like in the NFL. There’s a reason the Chiefs are always a Super Bowl contender every year. They have a Mahomes. They have a Kelce. They have a Jones. Few teams can match that. And the ones that can (Bills, Bengals, for instance) are usually left standing there with them near the end in the playoffs.

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Of course you can. Sagarin says so, and since Vegas bases their spreads on Sagarin’s predictor with abiut 95% alignment, they agree.


I looked up the last 7 years of his conf ratings (I figured you wouldn’t know how to). Here’s the yearly rating for each division:

2015 1. West 85.03 7. B12 75.28 9 East 72.55
2016 1. West 81.22 5. B12 75.86 8 east 73.17
2017 1. West 81.83 4. B12 78.45 9 east 72.41
2018 1. West 83.24 2. East 79.90 5. B12 77.35
2019 1. West 82.78 2 b12 79.52 4 east 77.61
2021 1. West 81.24 2. B12 78.70 6 east 75.11
2022 1. B12 81.09 2. West 80.80 3. East 79.83

Avg: West: 82.30 B12: 78.40 East: 75.43 (SEC Avg: 78.86

Net: over the last 7 years the avg SEC team is less than 0.5 points better than the avg B12.

So better. Got it.

How many Natty’s for the Big 12 in that time period? Or let’s go back 15 years? Now how many for the SEC?

I think you get the point now.

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

Exactly. Those teams are basically handed playoff spots before the season begins and they just have to avoid screwing it up.

What a system!

[Bearcat]

Bucknell and Bradley!

Secret Word GIFfrom Secret GIFs

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

Georgia’s been really good the last 5-6 years. Before that they’d been unranked in 5 of the previous 8 years.

So you add one more loss to your record when you play Georgia once a year, and Alabama hangs a loss on you every 3-4 years. Wow, you’ve got it so rough! It’s not like KU plays Oklahoma every year and other top 10 teams.

Bragging about being in the SEC is such a joke at this point. Quit living vicariously through the accomplishments of a few much better programs. It would be like a TCU basketball fan bragging about KU’s accomplishments.

No one’s bragging about the SEC. Just pointing out that they’re a better football conference than the Big 12. Not really sure how anyone could disagree with that. Sorry if it hurts your feels.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

Yup. After going up against the likes of Georgia and Tennessee this year, Mizzou was terrified to line up against all of Kansas' 2 and 3 star athletes and grad transfers. How could we even compete?

As far as scared goes, that was Bill Self and your brave administration who was afraid to schedule a series (in football or basketball) with Mizzou for half a decade after Mizzou left for the SEC.

Butthurt cowards.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't mean it's true.

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

There’s isn’t a perfect system to determining a champion in ANY college sport. Basketball continually expands the field letting in more teams further watering down the field and allowing for ‘Cinderella’ teams to make deep runs in the tourney. And you hardly ever end up with the best 4 teams in college basketball in the Final Four. Heck, in just the last 5 years alone, we’ve seen two 11 seeds make the Final Four. A middling UCLA team that farted around all season in the PAC 12, barely squeezed into the field and then got hot at the right time. We’re they one of the 4 best college basketball teams in the country in 2021? Of course not. Did that matter? Nope.

And what about you guys? As a usual top 1-4 seed, you’ve been knocked out by the likes of Bucknell, Bradley, Northern Iowa, etc. Were they better teams than Kansas? Was their overall body of work for the whole season stronger than yours?

And as far as the college football playoffs and deserving to be there, this is what I know. It’s been going on for 8 years now. 4 times a Big 12 team made the final 4 (Oklahoma). Each time they went one and done. Didn’t matter if they were playing the SEC, ACC or Big 10. They promptly got booted out (usually in blowout fashion) And now your most consistent and strongest team year to year overall is leaving the Big 12 for the SEC (along with Texas), further shifting the balance of power towards the SEC.

The Big 12 is a superior conference in basketball, but they don’t measure up in football. On field results speak for themselves. And no ratings system is gonna convince anyone (besides Big 12 homers) otherwise.

Of course there's no perfect system, but March Madness/NFL playoffs/etc give all high-level teams a chance. You can't say that there are only 4 high level teams in CFB each year. Therefore, terrible format. Especially given all the inherent biases.

In CBB, you don't lose your chance at a nat'l championship because your star player misses a game in the regular season, or because of a tough early season loss when you weren't playing your best ball. Or because some idiots just don't perceive you to be on the level of a few other teams.

UCLA is actually a better example of my point than yours. Here was a team that finished with a few more losses than the top teams (a couple of which were very fluky losses under wild circumstances) and they were perceived to play in a weak conference, so they were given an 11 seed by a subjective committee. Turned out the Pac-12 was far better than people realized and they dominated the tourney, with a lot of convincing wins over much higher-seeded teams. They were a way underrated conference and they proved it. And the best of them was UCLA. If not for a half-court prayer at the buzzer (vs one of the best teams in recent years), they'd have played for a national title. Anyone who says that UCLA didn't deserve to be there is foolish.

Now let's imagine if CBB used the same system as CFB. Last year's playoff selection would have been Gonzaga, Baylor, Arizona and KU. Only one of them even reached their regional final. Are you telling me that Baylor would have deserved it more than UNC? Baylor was a shell of what they were early on. And by any metric, UNC was playing as well as any team in the nation for the last month of the season. That SHOULD matter a lot more than what happened early in the year. You shouldn't be penalized for peaking at the right time. They mowed through the tourney field and had KU down 15 at halftime of the nat'l title game. Yet, in a 4-team playoff, they would have been about the 30th team considered.

And Duke was probably the most talented team in the country, yet they wouldn't have made the cut either. Gonzaga was an overrated team that was there more due to reputation than achievements. And Arizona was another slightly overrated team that feasted on a fairly weak schedule.

A four team system is a joke. Period. For a thousand reasons.

[Trevo_410]

jfc im here to watch ku fans continue to cry about mizzou rejecting them for prom.... not read high school essays.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

So better. Got it.

How many Natty’s for the Big 12 in that time period? Or let’s go back 15 years? Now how many for the SEC?

I think you get the point now.

There’s been zero qualitative diff between the leagues for the last 7 years.


In fact, your “worst team of the decade” weighed down the B12 so much with their shitty play that even a bad team would’ve made the B12 better overall

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

Of course there's no perfect system, but March Madness/NFL playoffs/etc give all high-level teams a chance. You can't say that there are only 4 high level teams in CFB each year. Therefore, terrible format. Especially given all the inherent biases.

In CBB, you don't lose your chance at a nat'l championship because your star player misses a game in the regular season, or because of a tough early season loss when you weren't playing your best ball. Or because some idiots just don't perceive you to be on the level of a few other teams.

UCLA is actually a better example of my point than yours. Here was a team that finished with a few more losses than the top teams (a couple of which were very fluky losses under wild circumstances) and they were perceived to play in a weak conference, so they were given an 11 seed by a subjective committee. Turned out the Pac-12 was far better than people realized and they dominated the tourney, with a lot of convincing wins over much higher-seeded teams. They were a way underrated conference and they proved it. And the best of them was UCLA. If not for a half-court prayer at the buzzer (vs one of the best teams in recent years), they'd have played for a national title. Anyone who says that UCLA didn't deserve to be there is foolish.

Now let's imagine if CBB used the same system as CFB. Last year's playoff selection would have been Gonzaga, Baylor, Arizona and KU. Only one of them even reached their regional final. Are you telling me that Baylor would have deserved it more than UNC? Baylor was a shell of what they were early on. And by any metric, UNC was playing as well as any team in the nation for the last month of the season. That SHOULD matter a lot more than what happened early in the year. You shouldn't be penalized for peaking at the right time. They mowed through the tourney field and had KU down 15 at halftime of the nat'l title game. Yet, in a 4-team playoff, they would have been about the 30th team considered.

And Duke was probably the most talented team in the country, yet they wouldn't have made the cut either. Gonzaga was an overrated team that was there more due to reputation than achievements. And Arizona was another slightly overrated team that feasted on a fairly weak schedule.

A four team system is a joke. Period. For a thousand reasons.

Wasn’t advocating for college basketball to use the same system. Just pointing out that no system is perfect and each has their own inherent flaws. I think they should have kept CBB at 64 and quit watering it down by adding teams. Just makes it more likely that the best teams won’t be there in the end.

And I think college football is perfect with a 4 team playoff, but of course the NCAA has to go and **** that up too (expanding to 12 by 2026) so I guess you’re getting your wish there.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

Bama, Georgia, and OSU usually ARE the best teams every year. You know why? Because they get the best recruits. Look at how many Top 50 guys those programs pull in every year. Best talent usually equates to the best teams, just like in the NFL. There’s a reason the Chiefs are always a Super Bowl contender every year. They have a Mahomes. They have a Kelce. They have a Jones. Few teams can match that. And the ones that can (Bills, Bengals, for instance) are usually left standing there with them near the end in the playoffs.

Georgia only has 3 appearances including this year and OSU is .500 in CFP games.

When it comes to Alabama, I totally get it and not trying to overstate the advantage and act like they wouldn't win it every other year anyway. I saw something a few years ago where they apparently had a depth chart of FIVE running backs that ended up as NFL starters (IIRC). It's ****ing insane.

But, look at Ohio State last season... they lost to Oregon (which vaulted OU like 9 spots into the top 5) and they were still in the final spot in the CFB before getting raped by Michigan, who was ranked #5 despite losing to the only ranked team they played all season. Then Ohio State has to pull off a miracle to beat a 4-loss Utah team.

Had they beaten Oregon, they still would have made the CFB to probably get brutalized by Alabama. And of course OSU has been destroyed multiple times in CFP games as well.

Does it matter a ton who gets brutalized by Alabama? Probably not some years. But, other years they aren't clearly the favorite, it might.

And during March Madness, coaches and kids are gaining experience in big games and it matters down the line as they become upper classmen.... in CFB, not nearly so much, because while Bama and OSU have years of that experience and just know how to win those games, other teams are left just hoping they'll slide in at #4 every several years... and they usually shit their pants.

Same reason Missouri wanted to join the SEC... to be the best, you want the experience of playing the best. Well, in CFB, that's a pretty damn short list and it just feeds the machine that is Alabama football.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Trevo_410

jfc im here to watch ku fans continue to cry about mizzou rejecting them for prom.... not read high school essays.

via GIPHY

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

No one’s bragging about the SEC. Just pointing out that they’re a better football conference than the Big 12. Not really sure how anyone could disagree with that. Sorry if it hurts your feels.

I couldn't care less if the SEC is best. I just think it's hilarious when people act like you're in the NFL while everybody else is playing FCS teams. It's so over the top and laughable. If you weren't one of them, you'd see how absurd it is.

As for how anyone could disagree....well, Sagarin currently disagrees, so there's your answer.

Btw, what does "better" actually mean?

I think most people agree that the SEC has been better at the top for a while now. Alabama is better than Oklahoma. Georgia in recent years has been better than any Big 12 team. But are the top teams all that matter? That seems to be all that people like you consider. Are the middle teams consistently better? Are the bottom-feeders better?

As we talked about, Missouri rarely even plays Alabama, and Georgia is one game on their schedule. Stop acting like you face murderer's row and everybody else has it easy.

This year, KU and MU both faced a team that made the playoff. They also both played another top 10 team. Plus another top 20 team. Each played three teams that finished in the final top 25.

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

There’s been zero qualitative diff between the leagues for the last 7 years.


In fact, your “worst team of the decade” weighed down the B12 so much with their shitty play that even a bad team would’ve made the B12 better overall

Correct, no difference. Except recruiting success, major bowl appearances and, you know, that little thing people affectionately refer to as ‘natty’s’. But other than that, no difference.

And it’s not ‘my’ “worst team of the decade”. It is THE worst team of the decade. Less wins, by far, than any Power 5 team in FBS. Do I need to post the link yet again?

https://cfbsaturdays.com/most-wins-i...-years-mobile/