ADVERTISEMENT

Big12 basketball Overrated?

VaultHunter

All-Conference
Gold Member
Apr 16, 2014
2,607
1,227
398
Lol OK. 7 teams out of 10 make NCAA tournament.

3 teams in Sweet Sixteen.

2 teams in Elite Eight.

1 team in Final Four.

Yep sounds Overrated to me.

And I got news for ya if WVU doesn't overlook S.F.A. that number is 4 teams in the Sweet Sixteen and 3 teams in the Elite Eight.
 
alrighty-then.gif
 
When you look at the seed the Big 12 received and compare it to the performance, by definition, it was overrated.

Kansas was seeded to the championship game and lost in the E8.

WVU seeded to the E8, lost in the round of 64

Texas seeded to the 2nd round lost in the round of 64

Baylor ditto

ISU seeded to Sweet 16 made the Sweet 16
TT, I'll call a wash for losing an 8/9

OU was seeded to EB and made fhe final four so, it was the only team to outperform its seed.

When 4 times as many of your teams perform below seeding as perform above seeding, it's fair to say the selection committee overrated your league's strength.
 
assessing a conference's quality based off a single-game elimination situation is fruitless...

Our conference played 130 games out of conference, as did all other major conferences (if not more) and our conference returned as the highest RPI...........

The B12 also had 5 teams in the Non-Conference SOS top 25 rankings as well, so the argument of "oh well they only played cupcakes in the OOC" falls flat as well... that's 50% of the conference

ACC had 4 (27%)
SEC had 4 (29%)
B10 had 5 (36%)
Pac12 had 1 (8%)
BE had 2 (20%)
AAC had 1 (9%)
 
Last edited:
Your argument presupposes that the RPI is a valid metric. If you were intellectually honest, then you'd admit that the RPI is flawed, and that it is somewhat easy to manipulate through scheduling. Akron's No. 36 RPI rating is a good example of a team with a ridiculous high RPI when one considers the Zips' level of competition, and lack of impressive wins.
 
I meant not good....brackets were very loaded and if we didn't look past SFA we make it to elite 8

Brackets were loaded because they had the top teams in the country like they do every year (minus Louisville and SMU). Maybe the NCAA should look into not playing the 1st few rounds and just pick 8 teams to play to satisfy all the whiners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColoradoMountaineer
Brackets were loaded because they had the top teams in the country like they do every year (minus Louisville and SMU). Maybe the NCAA should look into not playing the 1st few rounds and just pick 8 teams to play to satisfy all the whiners.

At the end of the day we shot very poorly. I don't understand the logic that if we didn't look past SFA we would have made it to the elite 8. The team should have gotten the message that SFA meant business at half time. A poor shooting team has a chance to lose any game in any round no guarantee they would have beaten ND or wisky either with that poor shooting.
 
Not really sure who is correct concerning conference strength other than that and about $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks when it comes to prognosticating success in the tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tOSUGrad90
did the B1G, Pac and SEC have 3 Sweet 16, 2 Elite 8 & one Final Four? I don't recall that being so.

did anyone play a true round robin in order to get to March Madness in the first place? or was it unbalanced?

The BXII's Elite 8/Final Four teams lost to the national champion. should they apologize for being overrated? does the champ deserve any credit for being the best?

the NCAA tourney was acc/Big East hybrid heavy with the original Big East team prevailing in the end over the acc.

but that doesn't make the now Big East the best collective league as some might judge with the NCAA results. none outside of Villanova made it out of the first weekend. that doesn't diminish what Villanova accomplished nor does it crown their league the best. November-early March games count as well, as I understand it.
 
I'm with OSUgrad .... Drifter delivers the TKO.

I have no problem in believing this conference was a bit overrated.
But I also have no problem accepting that from top to bottom it was probably the most competitive within itself.
And it was the in-conference competition combined with some early season ooc success that led to the B12 being a bit overrated at the end.

You can argue about TT ... but all our other teams did belong in the NCAA and that was a significant achievement. So in the end it's really no big deal that the B12 was slightly overrated .... unless, of course, your sense of self-worth hinges on this stuff.

I'm still more miffed about SFA than I am about the B12 overall.
 
If the Mountaineers had played deep into March Madness not a person on this here board would be saying the Big was over rated! It's all about the Mountaineers for folks around here just like it's all about dirty rice for Dale Jr. Yes.............it's all good. Now............bring on Big football!
 
Your argument presupposes that the RPI is a valid metric. If you were intellectually honest, then you'd admit that the RPI is flawed, and that it is somewhat easy to manipulate through scheduling. Akron's No. 36 RPI rating is a good example of a team with a ridiculous high RPI when one considers the Zips' level of competition, and lack of impressive wins.
exactly..how can you have an RPI before any games have been played?
 
The ACC has the best coaches in the country, by far. Louisville couldn't even play in the tournament this year. The ACC sucks at football, but they are the best basketball conference IMO.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT