Big 12 conference rankings- Sagarin

[152219]

It is definitely more balanced now, but it has been a competitive conference since the mid 1980s thanks to Wayman Tisdale and Danny Manning. If you're going back 20 years, we pretty much knew that we would start out no worse than 5-1 against TTech, Baylor and aTm...and we only had to play Kansas once. That said, there were a lot of tough games because Eddie Sutton had OSU playing at a higher level than they are playing now. Texas was better 20 years ago as well...those were 4 tough games and we would be happy to win 2 of those. We would also be happy to go 2-2 vs. Kansas, Missouri, ISU and KSU. Nebraska always gave us fits as well, but we'd usually beat Colorado.

Again, it was a tough conference back then. Now, there simply aren't any easy games which you can circle the calendar and say "that's a win". Regardless of conference strength, most of us have had enough of squeaking into the dance. We went through this in the second half of the 90s as well, but couldn't help but get the feeling Kelvin was slowly building us back up (which he did). Most of us aren't getting those same vibes now.

What would you consider a quality season for a league overall? If they get 50% of their teams into the NCAA tourney?

 

[152219]

I think some of you are forgetting how mediocre/bad KSU was in the early years in the league. They didn't have a winning record in the conference until the 11th year of the Big 12.

They finished 9th or worse the vast majority of those seasons with a couple of last place finishes.

ISU also had a spell in there when they were mediocre/bad, which drove a number of seasons when the Big 12 had 6 bad teams.

 

[soonertravis]

Sorry, the league was worse in the late '90s and early '00s. Spin it however you want. And no, this team wouldn't compete with Sampson's good teams from the early '00s, but they would compete with his teams from the late '90s.

Everyone seems to forget how long it took Sampson to even win a game in the tournament. And the first team to do it was the last team in the tournament that year. They got hot and made the sweet 16 and gave Mich St. all they wanted. But that took years. This team would absolutely compete with those teams.

And yet, it is okay to say we need to consistently get better than where we are now. This should be the baseline of the program. We should expect nothing worse than this year.

My assessment of Lon is that he has done that. He has established this year as the baseline again. Tubbs established that baseline of consistency in the 80s. Then it fell off in the early 90s with some high profile recruiting misses(and grade trouble after 1990). For Sampson's trouble getting tourney wins early in his tenure, he got the program back to the baseline of making the tournament. Then probation and the Capel mess set the program back. Lon took a great group of guys to the Final Four. It should have boosted the program more than it did. Lack of development of several high profile recruits has doomed the program to a run of average teams. However, he has been able to get us back to the baseline.

The key moving forward is to build on this baseline. Start winning 3-5 more games per year and have an occasional run to the Elite 8 or Final 4. Next year should be a step in that direction. Almost everyone back and a veteran team. The young guys should be much improved.

 

[152219]

If someone doesn't like Sagarin, here is Kenpom added for 2002 (in bold) and RPI (in italics).

2002
CU- 87 (14-14)- 87- 117
NU- 116 (13-15)- 103- 109
KSU- 120 (13-16)- 120- 136
BU- 121 (12-16)- 106- 155
ISU- 146 (12-19)- 113- 167
A&M- 197 (8-22)- 213- 189

 

[WaymanFan]

What would you consider a quality season for a league overall? If they get 50% of their teams into the NCAA tourney?

Yeah, that seems fair. Regardless, the league has been good for about 35 years, and is definitely more balanced now with zero pushovers.

As for KSU, yes, Kelvin went on a nice run against them in the back half of his OU career. However, our record against them in the 1990s was a mediocre 7-10...so definitely not a game one could automatically put in the win column when looking at the schedule.

 

[152219]

Yeah, that seems fair. Regardless, the league has been good for about 35 years, and is definitely more balanced now with zero pushovers.

As for KSU, yes, Kelvin went on a nice run against them in the back half of his OU career. However, our record against them in the 1990s was a mediocre 7-10...so definitely not a game one could automatically put in the win column when looking at the schedule.

When the league had 12 teams, 50%+ made the tournament 8 out of 15 years, with the high being 7 out of 12 teams in the 2009-2010 season.

Since the league went to 10 teams, they have had 50%+ make the tournament every single year (8 years), with the high being 7 teams (70%) making the tourney, which has happened 4 out of the 8 seasons (only once did only 50% of the teams make the tourney). The league isn't as strong this year IMO, which will be shown Selection Sunday when only 5 out of the 10 teams will make the tournament.

 

[152219]

Yeah, that seems fair. Regardless, the league has been good for about 35 years, and is definitely more balanced now with zero pushovers.

As for KSU, yes, Kelvin went on a nice run against them in the back half of his OU career. However, our record against them in the 1990s was a mediocre 7-10...so definitely not a game one could automatically put in the win column when looking at the schedule.

This year's KSU team isn't good, and OU's loss to them is a black mark. ISU also isn't good, but OU did play them in Hilton when Halliburton was playing.

 

[BoulderSooner]

This year's KSU team isn't good, and OU's loss to them is a black mark. ISU also isn't good, but OU did play them in Hilton when Halliburton was playing.

ksu is a top 100 team in the country by basicly every metric

 

[BoulderSooner]

When the league had 12 teams, 50%+ made the tournament 8 out of 15 years, with the high being 7 out of 12 teams in the 2009-2010 season.

Since the league went to 10 teams, they have had 50%+ make the tournament every single year (8 years), with the high being 7 teams (70%) making the tourney, which has happened 4 out of the 8 seasons (only once did only 50% of the teams make the tourney). The league isn't as strong this year IMO, which will be shown Selection Sunday when only 5 out of the 10 teams will make the tournament.

if texas wins vs tech in KC 6 teams are getting in

 

[152219]

ksu is a top 100 team in the country by basicly every metric

I consider major conference teams between 75-100 to be mediocre/bad.
100-150= extremely bad
150+ = terrible/embarrassing
200+ = well, this is a PG board so I'll let you use your imagination

This year's KSU and ISU teams are in the 90s in Sagarin. KSU is 92 in Kenpom and ISU is 89.

Net Rankings
KSU = 99
ISU = 98

They are mediocre/bad teams.

 

[152219]

if texas wins vs tech in KC 6 teams are getting in

Definitely possible, but Texas' Net Ranking is still not going to be good with just 1 more win. But, I also don't have their Q1 and Q2 wins and their Q3/4 losses. (if they have any) along with the rest of the bubble.

 

[WTSooner]

Too bad I cannot find the '98 season when the Big 12 was the 7th best conference according to Sagarin. But, this year the Big 12 teams had the following overall records.

Baylor 14-14
Mizzou 17-15
Tech 13-14
KSU 17-12
CU 13-14
Texas 14-17
ISU 12-18
A&M 7-20

Are you sure my statement is "ridiculously false" and "silly"?

Considering Big 12 teams this year have the following records:

KSU 10-21
ISU 12-19
TCU 16-15
OSU 17-14

I'm not really sure you proved the point you are trying to prove.

Big 12 had two massively sub .500 teams last year as well.

And one the year before that.

'98 is the very beginning of the period I've been trying to have this discussion about.

Question, in terms of how a top 30ish OU team should perform, what do you think the difference in expected win percentage is against an 85th ranked team, and one ranked 200th? In my mind, OU wins well over 90% of those games against BOTH opponents. THAT is the point I've been trying to make, that even though in some of these years the teams were worse, they are bad enough both then and now, that they are games a good/solid OU team wins.

I stand behind my analysis. The way OU performed against quality competition then compared to now lets me know all I need to know about the quality of OU's rankings and records back then. I don't care who a team played, if they finished 5 games over .500, I definitely don't consider them "a really bad team."

So your argument is basically that OU's bball history is built on inflated results? lol, and you call me anti-OU.

 

[WTSooner]

And you all can drop the how many teams are Dancing argument too. The number of teams that make the Tourney, and the overall makeup of college basketball in general has changed too much to compare that stat 20-30 years apart. Can't be done.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Considering Big 12 teams this year have the following records:

KSU 10-21
ISU 12-19
TCU 16-15
OSU 17-14

I'm not really sure you proved the point you are trying to prove.

Big 12 had two massively sub .500 teams last year as well.

And one the year before that.

'98 is the very beginning of the period I've been trying to have this discussion about.

Question, in terms of how a top 30ish OU team should perform, what do you think the difference in expected win percentage is against an 85th ranked team, and one ranked 200th? In my mind, OU wins well over 90% of those games against BOTH opponents. THAT is the point I've been trying to make, that even though in some of these years the teams were worse, they are bad enough both then and now, that they are games a good/solid OU team wins.

I stand behind my analysis. The way OU performed against quality competition then compared to now lets me know all I need to know about the quality of OU's rankings and records back then. I don't care who a team played, if they finished 5 games over .500, I definitely don't consider them "a really bad team."

So your argument is basically that OU's bball history is built on inflated results? lol, and you call me anti-OU.

If you think a top 30 team would beat an 85th ranked team "well over 90%" of the time, you don't understand stats or probabilities. When the 85th ranked team is playing at home in that scenario, they will win far more than 10% of those games.

 

[WaymanFan]

When the league had 12 teams, 50%+ made the tournament 8 out of 15 years, with the high being 7 out of 12 teams in the 2009-2010 season.

Since the league went to 10 teams, they have had 50%+ make the tournament every single year (8 years), with the high being 7 teams (70%) making the tourney, which has happened 4 out of the 8 seasons (only once did only 50% of the teams make the tourney). The league isn't as strong this year IMO, which will be shown Selection Sunday when only 5 out of the 10 teams will make the tournament.

Good stats, but it also supports what I have been saying about things being more balanced now. Still, there were some great teams in the Big 8 / Big XII over the past 35 years. If u want to go back 20 years, ISU had a heckuva season...the refs cost them a Final Four bid. Kansas was Kansas, and OSU was also an Elite 8 team. Over the next few years, Kansas, OU, Texas and OSU would all make the Final Four. Throw in ISU and Missouri making the Elite Eight, you had a five year run with half the conference making the Elite Eight and a third of the conference making the Final Four over a three year span from 2002-2004. That supports my argument that the conference was pretty strong back then, even if top-heavy...lots more than just a couple of good programs.

 

[WTSooner]

Good stats, but it also supports what I have been saying about things being more balanced now. Still, there were some great teams in the Big 8 / Big XII over the past 35 years. If u want to go back 20 years, ISU had a heckuva season...the refs cost them a Final Four bid. Kansas was Kansas, and OSU was also an Elite 8 team. Over the next few years, Kansas, OU, Texas and OSU would all make the Final Four. Throw in ISU and Missouri making the Elite Eight, you had a five year run with half the conference making the Elite Eight and a third of the conference making the Final Four over a three year span from 2002-2004. That supports my argument that the conference was pretty strong back then, even if top-heavy...lots more than just a couple of good programs.

Yep. Top of the league was much tougher back then. There were some really, really good teams during that period of time in the Big 12. And going back to Billy's days, some really good teams back then as well.

 

[152219]

Considering Big 12 teams this year have the following records:

KSU 10-21
ISU 12-19
TCU 16-15
OSU 17-14

I'm not really sure you proved the point you are trying to prove.

Big 12 had two massively sub .500 teams last year as well.

And one the year before that.

'98 is the very beginning of the period I've been trying to have this discussion about.

Question, in terms of how a top 30ish OU team should perform, what do you think the difference in expected win percentage is against an 85th ranked team, and one ranked 200th? In my mind, OU wins well over 90% of those games against BOTH opponents. THAT is the point I've been trying to make, that even though in some of these years the teams were worse, they are bad enough both then and now, that they are games a good/solid OU team wins.

I stand behind my analysis. The way OU performed against quality competition then compared to now lets me know all I need to know about the quality of OU's rankings and records back then. I don't care who a team played, if they finished 5 games over .500, I definitely don't consider them "a really bad team."

So your argument is basically that OU's bball history is built on inflated results? lol, and you call me anti-OU.

LOL. You don't have any analysis besides your opinion.

And why not remark on the posts that back up my claim that some seasons there were 4-6 bad teams in the Big 12 in the '90s/early '00s? You know, the statement you called ridiculous and silly, which I supported with actual data.

Yes, OU's record was inflated in the late '90s/early '00s by being able to play a much higher % of bad teams. That doesn't mean that those OU teams weren't solid to excellent, but their overall record was easily assisted, which is supported by actual data.

 

[Soonerinkc]

Guess my question is how many conferences are there....and then the power conferences.


#3 out of 5 is different than #3 out of 10...

Just another angle.

Also the big 12 vs non conf...(power conf and lower level)

 

[152219]

Considering Big 12 teams this year have the following records:

KSU 10-21
ISU 12-19
TCU 16-15
OSU 17-14

I'm not really sure you proved the point you are trying to prove.

Big 12 had two massively sub .500 teams last year as well.

And one the year before that.

'98 is the very beginning of the period I've been trying to have this discussion about.

Question, in terms of how a top 30ish OU team should perform, what do you think the difference in expected win percentage is against an 85th ranked team, and one ranked 200th? In my mind, OU wins well over 90% of those games against BOTH opponents. THAT is the point I've been trying to make, that even though in some of these years the teams were worse, they are bad enough both then and now, that they are games a good/solid OU team wins.

I stand behind my analysis. The way OU performed against quality competition then compared to now lets me know all I need to know about the quality of OU's rankings and records back then. I don't care who a team played, if they finished 5 games over .500, I definitely don't consider them "a really bad team."

So your argument is basically that OU's bball history is built on inflated results? lol, and you call me anti-OU.

And you obviously didn't see my later post in regards to the '98 season.

I did find the RPI numbers for the '98 season

Baylor 14-14- 92
Mizzou 17-15- 53
Tech 13-14- 101
KSU 17-12- 74
CU 13-14- 114
Texas 14-17- 111
ISU 12-18- 128
A&M 7-20- 235

That is 6 teams with a RPI of 92+ with A&M in the 200s! KSU squeaks in above the threshold with a 74th position.

So, eliminate KSU and Mizzou from that list, which leaves.


Baylor 14-14- 92
Tech 13-14- 101
CU 13-14- 114
Texas 14-17- 111
ISU 12-18- 128
A&M 7-20- 235

That means 50% of the Big 12 that year consisted of "bad teams" IMO. 4 of those were in the Big 12 South. So, your argument having 4 of the 5 other teams in your division being bad doesn't help OU?

 

[Max Power]

And you obviously didn't see my later post in regards to the '98 season.

I did find the RPI numbers for the '98 season

Baylor 14-14- 92
Mizzou 17-15- 53
Tech 13-14- 101
KSU 17-12- 74
CU 13-14- 114
Texas 14-17- 111
ISU 12-18- 128
A&M 7-20- 235

That is 6 teams with a RPI of 92+ with A&M in the 200s! KSU squeaks in above the threshold with a 74th position.

So, eliminate KSU and Mizzou from that list, which leaves.


Baylor 14-14- 92
Tech 13-14- 101
CU 13-14- 114
Texas 14-17- 111
ISU 12-18- 128
A&M 7-20- 235

That means 50% of the Big 12 that year consisted of "bad teams" IMO. 4 of those were in the Big 12 South. So, your argument having 4 of the 5 other teams in your division being bad doesn't help OU?

So we were never that good. Just had inflated records and rankings. What we are now is what we always were a top 50 team but rarely a top 25 team. That the argument you are trying to make?