Big 12

[kingcy]

If no team from the conference makes it to the sweet 16 it is reasonable to say it is overrated, though that is a tough barometer when the conference's strength is driven by parity with lots of good but no great teams. I do find it interesting that our message board is loaded with fans that think without Niang we are done but are defending the conference as not being overrated. What other team from a power conference has the POY and another first team selection like we do without Niang? If you think the Niang loss ends our hopes for a run the only explanation can be the conference is drastically overrated, Kane and Ejim didn't deserve these honors, or we do not have a legitimate division 1 supporting cast.

Injuries play a huge roll in this. Look how bad MSU was when they had their injuries.

The 2 Big 12 teams with the best shot at the Sweet 16 had injuries to key players. KU is a lot better with Embiid, it showed in the conference and the tourney. We will see how ISU does without Niang.

The Big 10 has 3 good teams 4 average teams and 5 bad teams. The Big 12 has 2 good teams when healthy, 5 average team, and 2 bad teams and 1 really bad team.

 

[RunDMCyclone]

Personally, i dont think you can compare football and basketball. Totally different animals. Even though there is parity in football now, its not even close to the parity we see in hoops. And, upsets are much more difficult to pull off in football.

They're not comparable, but not because of the reasons you listed. The bowl games are not a seeded tournament like the NCAAs where you can clearly see who was perceived to be the better team. In football, it's only about traveling fans and TV ratings.

 

[RunDMCyclone]

Injuries play a huge roll in this. Look how bad MSU was when they had their injuries.

The 2 Big 12 teams with the best shot at the Sweet 16 had injuries to key players. KU is a lot better with Embiid, it showed in the conference and the tourney. We will see how ISU does without Niang.

The Big 10 has 3 good teams 4 average teams and 5 bad teams. The Big 12 has 2 good teams when healthy, 5 average team, and 2 bad teams and 1 really bad team.

Role*

 

[Cyhart]

They're not comparable, but not because of the reasons you listed. The bowl games are not a seeded tournament like the NCAAs where you can clearly see who was perceived to be the better team. In football, it's only about traveling fans and TV ratings.

What you say is true. But that's beside the point i was attempting to make.
I was basically saying that a single football game is a better indicator of quality than a single basketball game.

 

[AuH2O]

Injuries play a huge roll in this. Look how bad MSU was when they had their injuries.

The 2 Big 12 teams with the best shot at the Sweet 16 had injuries to key players. KU is a lot better with Embiid, it showed in the conference and the tourney. We will see how ISU does without Niang.

The Big 10 has 3 good teams 4 average teams and 5 bad teams. The Big 12 has 2 good teams when healthy, 5 average team, and 2 bad teams and 1 really bad team.

I agree that the makeup of the conference and with the two highest seeded teams having key injuries make this a bad test, but I don't think if no teams get out of the first weekend it's unreasonable to say it is overrated. If the MWC were in the exact same boat I think we would nearly all be saying it was overrated.

 

[HFCS]

KU needs to play a legitimate slate of Big 12 games. The WWE style of conference season is doing no favors for them or the league perception. Does anyone really think they've won 10 straight titles? KSU obviously won more regular season games than they did last year.

 

[Althetuna]

Conference comparisons only matter prior to the tournament and most of the interconference games occur at the beginning of the season. The only things people remember is how their team did and who won it all. Does anyone remember how the Big12 did last year?