Mizzou Basketball

[Saul Good]

MIZ-ZOU

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

And it is not, they have by far the most losses of any team in the team 10. They are not being slighted in any way for their schedule.

If they played the same weaker schedule that many of the other top 10 teams played, though, they wouldn't have 5 losses. If they played Murray's schedule, for example, they'd be winning in blowouts every game. It's all relative.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Florida has 4 losses, and UNC has 3... not really by that far. And the polls are week to week... KU fell 5 spots when they lost to Davidson and 3 spots after losing to ISU... not only because of who they lost to, but what the teams around them did. And they're also tied for the most top 25 wins and top 50 wins in the nation, and their SoS is #2, while 5 of the 7 teams ahead of them in the AP poll are 50+.

So you think ku is being slighted..where would you put them in the rankings? #5? #4? Tell me where you think they should be. I think they have a good ranking where they are, maybe a bit high (a spot or two, I have already said I would put them around 9 or 10), but enough to make a stink about, but apparently this is a touchy subject, so I would like to hear where you think they should be ranked and why?

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

So Kansas is a top 5 team in your eyes? There are only 4 ranked teams with more losses than Kansas.

About 5th-6th sounds right, yes. It's quite clear that they are very much on MU's level considering they played them to a near draw on the road.

But wait. You think Kansas should be ranked higher than any team with 4 losses. Wow. That's a bold statement, but I'll listen.

Hold the phones. Now you think a 5 loss team that has lost 2 of its last 3 should be ranked higher than any team with 3 losses? Run along. This conversation is over.

You are describing a very narrow-minded way of evaluating teams, without any emphasis put on context and schedule. The voters aren't supposed to vote on who the teams with the best records are. They're supposed to vote on who they perceive the best teams to be.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

If they played the same weaker schedule that many of the other top 10 teams played, though, they wouldn't have 5 losses. If they played Murray's schedule, for example, they'd be winning in blowouts every game. It's all relative.

In other words, they'd be a better team if they didn't have to play the Missouri's, Iowa State's and Davidson's of the world.

Gotcha.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

About 5th-6th sounds right, yes. It's quite clear that they are very much on MU's level considering they played them to a near draw on the road.


You are describing a very narrow-minded way of evaluating teams, without any emphasis put on context and schedule. The voters aren't supposed to vote on who the teams with the best records are. They're supposed to vote on who they perceive the best teams to be.

And what is the most considered factor is determining which teams are best? Record has to be the first factor, and then scheduling behind that.

A five loss team in the top five seems to be a bit much, I think they would be overated at that point.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

About 5th-6th sounds right, yes. It's quite clear that they are very much on MU's level considering they played them to a near draw on the road.


You are describing a very narrow-minded way of evaluating teams, without any emphasis put on context and schedule. The voters aren't supposed to vote on who the teams with the best records are. They're supposed to vote on who they perceive the best teams to be.

Interesting. I thought I had an undefeated team ranked behind a bunch of teams with multiple losses. I thought I had Kansas ranked ahead of every 5 loss team, almost every 4 loss team, and even ahead of several 3 loss teams.

You don't want to hold Kansas accountable for their losses, and I think you're wrong. 5 times this season, Kansas has lined up against an opponent and lost. The outcomes of games have consequences. Not all wins/losses are created equal, but Kansas shouldn't get a pass for losing 5 times.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

In other words, they'd be a better team if they didn't have to play the Missouri's, Iowa State's and Davidson's of the world.

Gotcha.

It has nothing to do with being a "better team." We're talking about records here. They'd obviously have a much better record if they didn't play the toughest non-conference schedule in the nation and played in a major conference with quality teams throughout their schedule (unlike, say, the SEC, ACC, or P12 this year).

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So you think ku is being slighted..where would you put them in the rankings? #5? #4? Tell me where you think they should be. I think they have a good ranking where they are, maybe a bit high (a spot or two, I have already said I would put them around 9 or 10), but enough to make a stink about, but apparently this is a touchy subject, so I would like to hear where you think they should be ranked and why?

I think the AP is about right.

Florida has beat 1 top 25 team this season... they played Syracuse and OSU close though. They were #12 and jumped 4 spots for beating South Carolina and Vanderbilt since other teams lost, so I think jumping KU would have been a bit much.

Murray State's resume is a joke... they might be a dangerous tourney team, but they clearly don't have a top 10 resume.

Duke would be ahead of KU had they not lost at home to Miami... don't think they should have fallen that far though.


This week... Florida plays Kentucky, Syracuse plays Georgetown, Ohio State plays Michigan State, Baylor plays KU and MU, and Duke plays UNC.... how sweet is that? Oh, and Murray State plays Tennessee State and Austin Peay.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Interesting. I thought I had an undefeated team ranked behind a bunch of teams with multiple losses. I thought I had Kansas ranked ahead of every 5 loss team, almost every 4 loss team, and even ahead of several 3 loss teams.

You don't want to hold Kansas accountable for their losses, and I think you're wrong. 5 times this season, Kansas has lined up against an opponent and lost. The outcomes of games have consequences. Not all wins/losses are created equal, but Kansas shouldn't get a pass for losing 5 times.

It's hard to take what you say seriously when you call Kansas nothing better than solid after they lost to your (#5 ranked) team on the road by 3 points.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Interesting. I thought I had an undefeated team ranked behind a bunch of teams with multiple losses. I thought I had Kansas ranked ahead of every 5 loss team, almost every 4 loss team, and even ahead of several 3 loss teams.

You're still thinking almost entirely in terms of losses, though. That's the problem.

You don't want to hold Kansas accountable for their losses, and I think you're wrong. 5 times this season, Kansas has lined up against an opponent and lost. The outcomes of games have consequences. Not all wins/losses are created equal, but Kansas shouldn't get a pass for losing 5 times.

No, I just think KU is plainly better than several of the teams you had ranked in front of them. The fact that they lost a few games in tough environments against good-to-great teams matters very little to me, and it certainly doesn't make them inferior to lesser teams (like Murray State) that never had to play such games.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Pants

It's hard to take what you say seriously when you call Kansas nothing better than solid after they lost to your (#5 ranked) team on the road by 3 points.

You're looking at 1 game, a loss, and expecting praise for it.

Kansas squeeked by Texas, trailed at halftime to aTm in AFH when aTm was missing their 2 best players, lost to Iowa State, played one mediocre half and one great half against OU at AFH, and lost to Mizzou. That's your last 5 games.

[KC_Connection]

So now we're penalizing KU for having lazy first halfs before beating teams down now?

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You're looking at 1 game, a loss, and expecting praise for it.

Kansas squeeked by Texas, trailed at halftime to aTm in AFH when aTm was missing their 2 best players, lost to Iowa State, played one mediocre half and one great half against OU at AFH, and lost to Mizzou. That's your last 5 games.

Why would you say I expect praise? I don't. I just think it's hilarious that you think MU is this really good team while Kansas is nothing more than solid considering what transpired on Saturday. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but don't expect to be taken seriously. That's all.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

No, I just think KU is plainly better than several of the teams you had ranked in front of them. The fact that they lost a few games in tough environments against good-to-great teams matters very little to me, and it certainly doesn't make them inferior to lesser teams (like Murray State) that never had to play such games.

I gain confidence in a CBB team based on who they beat, not necessarily who they lose to... and that mostly speaks to the fact that we're talking about college kids and to the fact that a UConn team that finished .500 in the BE last year and VCU can make the FF.

KU lost to Davidson, Duke lost to Miami, Mizzou lost to Oklahoma State, Michigan State lost to Northwestern... yeah, shit happens, just don't let it happen very often. Who can you play with? Who can you beat?

I'm not saying it's how the polls should work or whatever, it's just that some here are clearly focusing on the 5 losses while others are focusing on significant victories... of course, both have to be taken into account, but KU has shown throughout the season they can play with anyone in the country, and you can't say that about many teams.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

So now we're penalizing KU for having lazy first halfs before beating teams down now?

Well if you give style points for a good loss, why don't you lose them for a bad win?

I'm inclined to give credit for a tough loss. But if you're going to be consistent, you have to be willing to knock them for an ugly win.

Either you're merely a product of your W/L record (in which case Kansas shouldn't be top 10) or your a product of the quality and strength of each respective W/L (in which case the fact that they came out flat against some pretty mediocre squads counts).

Which one is it?