Big 12 is sooooo overrated as BB conference......

[Speed]

A comparison of two conferences, both champions clinched in the 15th game. Team A clinched with 0 losses through the 15th game. Team B clinched with 2 losses.

[Speed]

Oh yeah, the bottom of Team A's conference has 4 wins. The bottom of Team B's conference has 0 wins.

[Shocker85]

Oh yeah, the bottom of Team A's conference has 4 wins. The bottom of Team B's conference has 0 wins.

I think I know how this is going to end...

[pogo]

Great teams don't have 7 losses? So what is the cutoff, 6, 5, 4? Keep in mind WSU had 8 losses going into the tourney last year and made it to the final four, so apparently not a great team by your logic. Your logic is flawed.

I would say a great team has zero losses. A really good team that can do well in the tournament will have 5-8 losses depending on who the losses were to. The flagship is not a great team, they are a very good team when they play as a team. WSU was a very good team last year but not great. They aspired to greatness in spite of their losses. The team the previous year was better as far as record but did not achieve the greatness of last year. I don't think Rips logic is flawed I think it is just semantics that you two disagree on unless you really think the flagship is great.

[Flip1381]

I would say a great team has zero losses. A really good team that can do well in the tournament will have 5-8 losses depending on who the losses were to. The flagship is not a great team, they are a very good team when they play as a team. WSU was a very good team last year but not great. They aspired to greatness in spite of their losses. The team the previous year was better as far as record but did not achieve the greatness of last year. I don't think Rips logic is flawed I think it is just semantics that you two disagree on unless you really think the flagship is great.

I just think that great teams can have losses. These teams are made up of 18-23 year old kids, they are not always going to play consistently or as a team through the entire season and the parity in college basketball is growing each year. There is no doubt that a team without losses is a great team. I was pointing out that last year's team had 8 losses and went to the final four and I thought they were a great team. But yeah, it would be semantics and our opinion on the definition of what a good or great team.

[im4wsu]

I just think that great teams can have losses. These teams are made up of 18-23 year old kids, they are not always going to play consistently or as a team through the entire season and the parity in college basketball is growing each year. There is no doubt that a team without losses is a great team. I was pointing out that last year's team had 8 losses and went to the final four and I thought they were a great team. But yeah, it would be semantics and our opinion on the definition of what a good or great team.

In you opinion, does a "great" team have to perform at a high lever for
(a) the entire season,
(b) 75% of the season,
(c) 50% of the season,
(d) some part of a season, or
(e) just the post-season?

.

[im4wsu]

Since 2001, Kansas has played in 48 games. As the lower (underdog) seed, they are 2-4 (33.3%); as the higher or equal seed, they are 34-8 (81%); remove the 61-16matchups, the record becomes 28-8 (77.7%). All of the MVC teams combined have played a total of 44 games; as underdogs, the MVC is 12-21 (36.4%) and as favorites or pickems, 7-4 (63.6%). Kansas has never been worse than a 4 seed; no valley team has been better than a 4 seed.

[Flip1381]

In you opinion, does a "great" team have to perform at a high lever for
(a) the entire season,
(b) 75% of the season,
(c) 50% of the season,
(d) some part of a season, or
(e) just the post-season?

.

I think it would have to depend on the team starting the season. If you have a veteran team returning then obviously expectation are higher to start out doing well earlier in the season, compared to a younger team that has only played together for several months. I think a great team needs to play at a high level (whatever you mean by high level, is that only Wins/Losses?) for at least 75% of the season, but it needs to be a progression of getting better. By that I mean, a team with losses earlier in the season that progressively gets better can be a great team, but a team that starts out hot winning most or all of their games but losses multiple games against lessor competition at the end of the regular season and does nothing in the post season does not make a great team. I also believe post season play can make up for a mediocre regular season (peaking at the right time). Again, that is just my convoluted opinion, its not as simple as "greater than x number of losses cannot be considered a great team." But what do I know, I'm no gottlieb (sarcasm, just a little joke).

As far as the graphic, what is the conclusion I'm suppose to be drawing. I follow the statistics, but not sure what your conclusion is?

Edit: People are going to disagree and thats fine, this is just my opinion.

[ripemupshocks]

Second worst to only the MWC at 2-5.

MVC was 5-2.

I said second worst to only the MWC at 2-5.

[1972Shocker]

In you opinion, does a "great" team have to perform at a high lever for
(a) the entire season,
(b) 75% of the season,
(c) 50% of the season,
(d) some part of a season, or
(e) just the post-season?

IMHO the answer would be (a). However, you can be a national tournament champion without being a great team. I would say any national champion that was in the Top 10 for the final 2/3rds of the season (takes a while for the polls to find our who is really good so I discount polls for the first 1/3rd of the season) is probably a great team.

[im4wsu]

I think it would have to depend on the team starting the season. If you have a veteran team returning then obviously expectation are higher to start out doing well earlier in the season, compared to a younger team that has only played together for several months. I think a great team needs to play at a high level (whatever you mean by high level, is that only Wins/Losses?) for at least 75% of the season, but it needs to be a progression of getting better. By that I mean, a team with losses earlier in the season that progressively gets better can be a great team, but a team that starts out hot winning most or all of their games but losses multiple games against lessor competition at the end of the regular season and does nothing in the post season does not make a great team. I also believe post season play can make up for a mediocre regular season (peaking at the right time). Again, that is just my convoluted opinion, its not as simple as "greater than x number of losses cannot be considered a great team." But what do I know, I'm no gottlieb (sarcasm, just a little joke).

As far as the graphic, what is the conclusion I'm suppose to be drawing. I follow the statistics, but not sure what your conclusion is?

Edit: People are going to disagree and thats fine, this is just my opinion.

I don't endeavor to form a conclusion for you, that is up to you. However, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that Kansas does not perform significantly better in the Dance than the conglomerate of MVC teams, particularly when you consider that they always have been seeded 4th or betterand the MVC is always seeded 4th or worse.

The losses for KU as underdogs average a difference in seed of 5.5; the MVC, 5.86. In the losses when favored (even) where the difference in seed for KU is 3.5 compared to the MVC 4.0.

This is not to say that KU is not a better team than the MVC representatives, only that their relative performaces in the torunament might be construed to be fairly equivalent.

[Flip1381]

I don't endeavor to form a conclusion for you, that is up to you. However, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that Kansas does not perform significantly better in the Dance than the conglomerate of MVC teams, particularly when you consider that they always have been seeded 4th or betterand the MVC is always seeded 4th or worse.

The losses for KU as underdogs average a difference in seed of 5.5; the MVC, 5.86. In the losses when favored (even) where the difference in seed for KU is 3.5 compared to the MVC 4.0.

This is not to say that KU is not a better team than the MVC representatives, only that their relative performaces in the torunament might be construed to be fairly equivalent.

Ok...so what is the relevance of the MVC vs KU performance in the NCAA tournament to the discussion of "how many losses make a team a good team or great team?" Or did we just veer off that discussion on to something else and I missed the turn?

[im4wsu]

Ok...so what is the relevance of the MVC vs KU performance in the NCAA tournament to the discussion of "how many losses make a team a good team or great team?" Or did we just veer off that discussion on to something else and I missed the turn?

You put two separate and independent posts together in a thread about the Big 12 being overrated to turn into your discussion of good/great teams. The Ku vs MVC was never mentioned in asking you to clarify what you meant by great.

[Flip1381]

You put two separate and independent posts together in a thread about the Big 12 being overrated to turn into your discussion of good/great teams. The Ku vs MVC was never mentioned in asking you to clarify what you meant by great.

Gotcha, i was reading it as a reply to my previous post. My bad.

[im4wsu]

Gotcha, i was reading it as a reply to my previous post. My bad.

No problem.