Printable View
In reading a few b12 bball review pieces lately, several reporters have mentioned that no 8-8 b12 team has ever made the tourney.
What's interesting is that out of our 12 tourney appearances (since 80-81), we were 0.500 or worse FIVE times. So using today's "rules" would we have only made it seven times over 20 years (1985-2005)? Seems hard to believe....not a commentary on today's team, just an observation about today's tourney "criteria" relative to the big12.
When the Big 12 first opened, I don't think they really added basketball strength outside of Texas, and maybe a little with Texas Tech. Now all 4 Texas schools are stronger. The old Big 8 had some very competitive conference competition. Like in 1994-95 we were 6-8 in conference (although we did beat Kansas in the tourney and make it to the tourney title game), but had an RPI in the 20s I think. Got a 7 seed with a losing conference record. That was an extremely tough year, but still. Also I think there is much more parity in college bball and mid majors are on the radar of the selection committee seemingly more.
Yes...more bad luck for our current coach!
:jimlad:
Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclonenum1
Having said that, I think so. I think it is harder to make yourself stand out when every week you are challenged by two teams. I think this conference is so deep. I mean we are terrible but yet we gave the top 2-3 teams a run for their money. I think overall college basketball is a lot deeper. There are more kids out there that are capable and that has brought the bottom up.
Not sure, but this is kind of the reason that I am ok with the NCAA possibly expanding the tourney from 65 to 90+. College hoops has been my favorite sport until a few years ago. I loved ISU being part of the tourney even if we weren't that great. It's become so depressing not even SNIFFING the NCAAs in 4+ years.
I do think it's a bit harder though to get into the tourney than it used to be. Used to be 20 overall wins was a lock. Not the case now. Used to be .500 in your conference was a lock. Not the case now.
Not really. Finish 9-7 in conference play and play a reasonable non-conference schedule and you usually get in. Especially if you have recent success in the NCAA tournament.
I realize we've made it look more difficult lately but it's not.
should be easy next year with the expanded field.
So your criteria is a winning conference record, something we only did 7 times in 30 years. Not difficult at all....Quote:
Originally Posted by Drive4cy
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclonenum1
Our good buddy JO only had 2 wining conference seasons...2 NCAA tourneys in 12 years would not have generated the legendary status he deserves.....
@brokenloginagain - You have to remember that the Big 8 was always a very competitive League and there were a lot of times that sub .500 teams made the tourney.
In 1992/1993 6 teams made the dance and Mizzou with a 5-9 conf record was selected over Oklahoma who was 7-7 and 20-12 overall. One could argue that 7 teams out of an 8 team league deserved to make the Dance, that is pretty freaking impressive (and it would be almost impossible to have 7 teams in an 8 team league go over .500). There were bound to be years that sub .500 teams made it.
In 93: KU, OK ST, ISU, Neb, KSU and Mizzou made the Tourney and OU made the NIT. Final 92-93 Big 8 Men's B-ball Standings below.
Conf. All
1992-93 W L W L
Kansas 11 3 29 7
Oklahoma State 8 6 20 9
Iowa State 8 6 20 11
Nebraska 8 6 20 11
Kansas State 7 7 19 11
Oklahoma 7 7 20 12
Missouri 5 9 19 14
Colorado 2 12 10 17
oh I loved the big8 conf and appreciate how great/tough it was. I guess what i'm pointing out is that today, for whatever reason, you need a winning conference record to make it. those teams in 92-93 would be on all 137 blogs that track the "bubble" and today you don't see anybody going 0.500 in conference and 19-11 and making the dance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CYcoFan
I guess it is harder for the BCS Conf teams to make the Tourney today, but not so much because of Conf record. Probably has as much to do with the Tournament Committee taking more Mid-Majors as at large bids. The "little guy" seems to get more love then they did 15 years ago. Gonzaga's elite 8 run in 1999 really changed things.
Thats because the little guy is better than they were. There are more great bball players. There is more emphasis on sport now as well making the quality of basketball deeper. I do agree with you though, it is harder if you are in a BCS conference and easier if not. I don't think it is because of the committee showing love unjustly. I don't know if you meant that or not but it kind of sounded that way. You look at a Davidson or George Mason of late and it is definitely justified IMO to let some of those teams in over a team in a BCS conference that finishes 7th or 8th.Quote:
Originally Posted by CYcoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaman3
I wasn't saying unjustly. I was just saying in general, they get more love than they did.
There have been some great runs by Mid-Major teams in the past and it has probably happened more in the last 10-15 years than it ever did before. Personally I think the NCAA Tourney needs to expand to 96 or 128 teams.
OK, I thought that is what you meant. I don't like tourney expansion. Honestly the last Ten teams in really don't have a chance the way it is. I guess I wouldn't have a huge problem with 96, but I just don't see the need. All that does is make the NIT weaker and makes an 9 seed play an extra game when they may in fact have a chance to do some damage. I also think it should be an accomplishment to make the tourney. We have already diluted the accomplishment of making a bowl, I don't know it needs to be done with basketball too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CYcoFan