So, Big 12 results in 'the dance' ...

[surly]

sort of show that those of us who thought the league was good not great were correct?

Baylor looked awful. ISU lost to a team that later got beat by thirty. oSu lost both their game and coach. WVU was game but in the end lame. K-State was one and done. And only Ku is left. While the SEC brings three to the quarters.

I know it's all about match-ups. But still, we are a bit myopic, aren't we. The conference is fun because of the round robin, not because it's somehow elite. There's only one member in that category.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I disagree. I think the BIg 12 and the ACC were the top conferences overall, and the Big 12 is 9-5 while the ACC was 8-8. That's not bad at all, and compares favorably with all conferences except the SEC (10-2) and PAC12 (9-3). The SEC was good, but not deep. The same could be said for the PAC12.

 

[MeowingCows]

sort of show that those of us who thought the league was good not great were correct?

Baylor looked awful. ISU lost to a team that didn't go much further. oSu loses both their game and coach. WVU was game but in the end pretty lame. K-State was one and done. And only Ku is left. While the SEC brings three of eight.

I know it's all about match-ups. But still, we are a bit myopic. The conference is fun because of the round robin, not because it's elite. There's only one member in that category.

I think we did just fine. It's not like the B1G, PAC12, or the ACC have performed notably better. The SEC is the real big surprise, here.

 

[clonedude]

I don't think you can read too much into it. Like you already stated, it's all about match ups in the tourney. Many of these games come down to the last shot or two. For example, who is really the better team, Wisconsin or Florida after last night? That game was so close and could have went either way.

Or look at the Michigan- Okie St game in round one. Which team is better? Michigan wins by one point after shooting 70+ % from 3 in the 2nd half of that game. Does that make them the better team? If they play 10 times, it might go 5-5, who knows?

It's too hard to determine in one game. You need to go by using all the data points over the entire season, and in that case, the Big 12 was very good, one of the top two conferences this year, and definitely better than the B1G.

I had B1G friends of mine telling me that the B1G was just as good as the Big 12 this year since they both put 3 teams in the Sweet Sixteen. Really? So putting 30% of your teams in the Sweet Sixteen is as good as putting 21% of your teams in?

There's a lot of debate to be had, that's what makes it fun, but you really need look at the entire season that each conference had. SEC had a few really good teams, and then nothing else. Big 12 was good top to bottom.

 

[CyCrazy]

The BIg 12 did fine.

 

[Die4Cy]

At least with the Big 12 scheduling we know that the teams with the best records will be the league's best teams. With the crazy scheduling of these broad and shallow conferences you will never be sure.

 

[HFCS]

sort of show that those of us who thought the league was good not great were correct?

Baylor looked awful. ISU lost to a team that later got beat by thirty. oSu lost both their game and coach. WVU was game but in the end lame. K-State was one and done. And only Ku is left. While the SEC brings three to the quarters.

I know it's all about match-ups. But still, we are a bit myopic, aren't we. The conference is fun because of the round robin, not because it's somehow elite. There's only one member in that category.

Still statistically the best conference. Highest % of teams in Sweet 16. KU would be overall #1 if they reseeded today.

 

[chuckd4735]

Surly threads are the best!

 

[Sigmapolis]

Elite this.

 

[Bewilderme]

The tournament is a crapshoot. It's about matchups and execution, and a little luck.

By your logic, the SEC is the best conference, and the ACC is the worst.

 

[Tornado man]

The tournament is a crapshoot. It's about matchups and execution, and a little luck.

By your logic, the SEC is the best conference, and the ACC is the worst.

Every game ever played is about matchups and execution. The NCAA's are what every team shoots for when practice starts in Oct. It's the best way of measuring teams, of measuring conferences. SEC has turned out to be a great conference.

 

[cycloneML]

Elite this.

Love

 

[BBHMagic]

Our games have gone according to seed except for when K State won their play in game and when Baylor lost last night. I think that means we are who we thought we were.

 

[LivntheCyLife]

I think arguments about which conference is better are stupid. That said, the NCAAs has highlighted two ways I'd like to see the Big 12 improve.

1) I wish there were a couple more teams that played lock-down man-to-man. Both WVU and Baylor are a bit gimmicky on defense. And Kansas has been relying more on its offensive talent than being dominant defensively. I think this caught a couple teams a little unprepared in March.
2) I wish there was more elite level talent as you're seeing these players carry their teams in March. Outside of Kansas, the Big 12 hasn't produced that many NBA first rounders in recent years.

That said, I love the competitiveness and depth of the Big 12 and think its teams are some of the most fun to watch.

 

[Clonefan32]

I've never understood using the tournament and a gauge of a conference. Take individual, one game sample sizes rather than looking at an 18 game conference schedule. I just don't get it.

 

[randomfan44]

sort of show that those of us who thought the league was good not great were correct?

Baylor looked awful. ISU lost to a team that later got beat by thirty. oSu lost both their game and coach. WVU was game but in the end lame. K-State was one and done. And only Ku is left. While the SEC brings three to the quarters.

I know it's all about match-ups. But still, we are a bit myopic, aren't we. The conference is fun because of the round robin, not because it's somehow elite. There's only one member in that category.

Drawing conclusions on a conference based on ncaa tourney results is and always will be foolish. It's a lazy man's man of judging how good a conference is.

 

[randomfan44]

I think arguments about which conference is better are stupid. That said, the NCAAs has highlighted two ways I'd like to see the Big 12 improve.

1) I wish there were a couple more teams that played lock-down man-to-man. Both WVU and Baylor are a bit gimmicky on defense. And Kansas has been relying more on its offensive talent than being dominant defensively. I think this caught a couple teams a little unprepared in March.
2) I wish there was more elite level talent as you're seeing these players carry their teams in March. Outside of Kansas, the Big 12 hasn't produced that many NBA first rounders in recent years.

That said, I love the competitiveness and depth of the Big 12 and think its teams are some of the most fun to watch.

1) Bill Self has had maybe 2 or 3 teams in 14 years that failed to finish in the Top 20 of Defensive rankings on kenpom.com. The rules changes regarding the shortened shot clock and more focus on calling fouls have resulted in many physical teams not being as good defensively as they learn to adjust their defensive systems.
2) The Big 12 teams have plenty of talent. They have as much as Elite Eight teams Florida, Xavier, South Carolina and Gonzaga. Oregon has some high level recruits and then the big boys of Kansas, Carolina and Kentucky have more as well.

At this time of the year it's about playing aggressive and hitting your shots. Baylor got punched in the face by a more aggressive team and didn't respond and they have a terrible coach who does nothing to help his team win games. At no point did I ever see Baylor try to create offense for Motley, their best offensive weapon. Ridiculous. And West Virginia is a team that is 100% reliant on hitting threes, which they are bad at. They are such terrible shooters that they count on having 20+ more shot attempts in hope of outscoring their opponent because they shoot at such a low percentage. Lots of risk in that style but they have no other choice given their level of talent. They are FAR outperforming their individual talent level.

 

[randomfan44]

Elite this.

I think that's what's called "peaking at the wrong time". If ISU played every game with the focus and intensity they did against KU, they would be a much more accomplished team overall.

 

[Bryce7]

Whar BIG?

 

[chuckd4735]

I think that's what's called "peaking at the wrong time". If ISU played every game with the focus and intensity they did against KU, they would be a much more accomplished team overall.

No we peaked at the right time. That doesn't mean that certain matchups were going to out man us, and a big team like Purdue was one of them. It didn't help we had an off shooting night, but their bigs killed us.

 

[madguy30]

I think that's what's called "peaking at the wrong time". If ISU played every game with the focus and intensity they did against KU, they would be a much more accomplished team overall.

Wasn't ISU's peak. Was a sign of what they were capable of in spots but also needed 18 three's to have a chance.

Peak was probably Big 12 tourney.

They really didn't look that good the 2nd half of the Nevada game or 1st half of Purdue.

Big 12 isn't amazing but was *this* close to having more teams advance beyond their seeds outside of Baylor, but Baylor is Baylor is Baylor and that's fine by me...would be nice if they were swapped out with another school so they're not associated with the B12 brand in any way.