7 teams in top 28
- Thread starter HFCS
- Start date
Might want to reread what I actually said…I said Dayton went back to an incredibly easy conference. I personally think the Big12 is the best basketball conference
Regarding these Challenges, another thing that gets overlooked is that we send all 10 of our teams, good or bad, whereas the SEC gets to cherry pick which 10 out of 14 they want to play. So, the bias is already in their favor before the games even start.
Big 12 played more than one non-conf game. He was wrong to make it about one game. If you look at the 100+ games, pretty obvious that having a 10 team deep 10 team league was not rewarded in the slightest. If it was OU would easily have got in over Rutgers, ND and Michigan. Especially given OU ended the year hot vs tough competition.
There's also the question that it may have physically wore down teams and some teams might actually be worse now...that doesn't negate the harder slate they had to go through, or the round robin format where nobody lucks into an easier draw.
I mean, most here agree ISU actually is actually worse now because they are worn down...but going by our resume alone ISU is possibly the most underseeded team (top 5 in quad 1 wins). Quite a few articles written about it by people who have nothing to do with ISU. Many assumed that high quad 1 win total would guarantee an 8-9 seed. I don't care because I don't like the 8-9 spot anyway. We've had a few round of 32 teams that I think would have been Sweet 16 teams had they slid down to 10 or 11 seed.
I can't wait to get back up to 12 teams.
In football and hoops I think these sports journalists can't get a job if they can do simple math. Big Ten/SEC got 8 bowl teams/NCAA teams...but the Big 12 only got 7. I mean I think they really don't understand why that is wrong, not an intentional slight, they really can't do the basic math.
Maybe one article in 100 about # of NCAA wins or bowl wins will use the %. I may be kind, it may be 1 in 1000 or none ever.
I agree with almost everything that you are saying except for the 10 deep team league part. I look at the Big12 like SEC football. There are 3 great teams at the top that could win it all, 3 middle teams that are good but could lose to anyone, and 4 teams that just aren’t that good.
The big ten doesn’t have a single team I would call great, there are 7 teams that are good, 1 that is bipolar (Michigan) 2 that are decent, and 4 that are trash this year.
The whole league is top 80 in every metric. Is an entire football conference typically top 45 or top 50 in every computer model at the end of the year? Vandy was 141 in sagarin, that'd be like if West Virginia as our last place team was net ranking 287 instead of 78.
Few watched Oklahoma State this year but they were a horrible matchup for us, they aren't even eligible for the tournament, they'd give every team in the tournament an annoying game and beat lots of the at large teams.
West Virginia is technically last and even with them being last @WVU is a top 10 hornets nest of a game in the nation. I doubt there are many years any major conference team has had its last place team #78 in RPI or Net or whatever the going metric is.
I'm just pointing out...there's no reward for it...in fact it's the opposite. You're going to get passed over for teams with a soft underbelly to feast on.
Last place Net Ranking:
BIg 12: 78
Big Ten: 141
SEC: 223
Big East: 193
ACC: 205
Pac12: 252
If that doesn't say 10 deep, 10 teams, what does? Do they all need to be top 10? 10 teams in the top 20?
Last edited:
The B10 does not have 7 good teams. Every single B12 team would likely finish with a winning record in the B10. West Virginia was so much better than the bottom of the B10 teams.
I mean there is no point in arguing this because we have no idea if that would happen. The bottom 4/5 big ten teams are garbage. I didn’t think the bottom 3/4 teams of the big 12 were very good at all.
Ha well we saw what happened when one of them played your tournament champs. They got run out of the gym.
Yep and your champion lost to Dayton who is playing in the NIT.
No idea. There is some idiotic Iowa love but I have them in my final four. I think their bracket is insanely easy
This is such a fallacy. Athletes aged 18-22, when they get consistently a good night's sleep (which is monitored) and great nutrition, plus in-season conditioning...no they don't get "worn down."
Umm athletes can 100% get worn down especially freshmen. Physically and mentally.
This was a knock on the Big 12 for awhile when it was just KU who had won a title or even made a Final Four.
Hard to say that now considering we’ve had KU and Baylor both win it recently (KU in ‘08 is still within the last 15 years and the my have multiple Final Fours since too) and Tech played in the title game and came within an eyelash of winning it. OU just played in the Final Four a few years ago too.
First, almost no one on here disputes that the SEC rules. The big difference is the SEC gets that benefit of the doubt with minimal games against good teams in non con, which in general is the case with so few football games.
The difference is in CBB is there are a **** load of non con data points. And the difference in the SEC-Big 12 challenge was one game. And with all those data points the Big 12 was pretty clearly the best conference, the SEC was next, then a big drop off to the Big 10 and Big East.
It’s the same nonsense the media has pulled in Big 10 football. Range from mediocre to completely sucking balls in the non con, then magically a disproportionate number of teams in the conference “really improved” during conference play.
No one is taking one or two games and making this point. There are thousands of data points. That’s the great thing about CBB. There are so many data points across conferences we don’t need to use anecdotal evidence. Dayton and Kentucky over KU are two data points that were overwhelmed by the MANY others that show the Big 12 was the best conference.
Ditto! I loved that Tech team. Jarrett Culver was one of the most likeable dudes out there. Fun team to watch.