Missouri might be the Big 12 favorite next season...

[Cheno]

Two of the Top 3 were in the North, yes. But clearly, when looking at NCAA Tournament teams, Baylors run late in the year, and given the season series being tied, the league was even. You have to go top to bottom since all those teams are in the picture.

Yes, KU had to play Mizzou twice, but one of them was at home. OU had to go to Columbia. I doubt anyone would predict OU would lose to them at home last year, with everyone healthy. This argument would be more valid if Mizzou did play at OU last year.

Nothing else in the post is anything I attempted to dispute, and mostly agree with. AJ didn't play well against KU because they don't just let him run around, free. They stand on his head and force him to run offense at half court.

Suggesting KU was fortunate Blake (the National POY, #1 draft pick, best player in decades) missed two games in the heat of the conference race, including a head to head meeting, isn't unreasonable. Furthermore, to suggest OU would have won the Conference (regular season) without missing two big games (hosting KU and at Texas) when all they had to do was win one of them, is also not unreasonable.

KU has had a great run, but I won't apologize for pointing out one of those wins, in a down year, came with some pretty good fortune. It doesn't take anything from the run, unless fans of that school feel the perpetual need to defend those titles. I doubt most do.

I agree with what you've said. And yes, KU was fortunate to play OU without Blake. Obviously. So was Texas. But injuries are part of the game...and durability has been an issue with Blake every year. OU had their chances despite those 2 games without Blake. Again, they should have beat KU in Norman without Blake. What has consistently separated KU from the rest of the Big 12 under Bill Self is defense. IMO, defense wins championships. That is why KU has won so many under Bill Self. That is why OU didn't win one last year...the guards played no defense.

 

[playmakr]

I don't disagree with anything in this post. You can give credit to KU for winning 13 games while also saying they were lucky Blake didn't play against them.

Despite those facts I think saying KU didn't deserve it or "backed" into a conference championship is ridiculous and major sour grapes. They came off a NC lost 7 of their top 9 players and put guys like Reed and Morningstar in the rotation and made it to the Sweet Sixteen. They earned every bit of that.

Yea I didn't say they backed in, or that they didn't deserve anything. (I know another poster did)

They still had to win the games.

 

[gracefor24]

Yea I didn't say they backed in, or that they didn't deserve anything. (I know another poster did)

They still had to win the games.

Yeah, that's why I agreed with everything you said. I think Bill Self would agree with you and he said as much last year just in not having Blake in that game. Just the same as if Sherron Collins hadn't played last year but Blake did.

 

[stoops4pres]

KU was a deserving champion because they won it. Again, OU had the chance to tie it up at Missouri WITH Blake and lost. You are simply making excuses now. The bottom line is that KU was lucky to not have to play against Blake (as was UT) but the bottom line is OU had the chance with Blake back in the lineup against Mizzou and lost.

Then they go into the Big 12 tourney and lose to OSU.

I'm not arguing that OU wasn't the best team with Blake Griffin and I said as much last year. That doesn't mean that KU "backed" into the conference championship unless you're saying they "backed" into 13 conference wins. That's just stupid.

Also, you're acting as if injuries aren't a part of the game and somehow the opposing team shouldn't get credit for achieving something simply because there were injuries to opposing teams.

It seems to me you're just being a sore loser.

Your point on Ok. State has nothing to do with the regular season. And I already touched on that on my previous post. Your reasoning in that regard is flawed.

And you're right, OU still had a chance to win it AT Mizzou... My point is that that in all probability wouldn't have even mattered had Blake played vs. KU. OU beats KU, they win the conference. Plain and simple.

What you're lost at is that you're acting like OU should have won at Mizzou, which as I said earlier, the odds weren't in their favor. Mizzou was a tough team, and undefeated at home. You're argument would be more reasonable if Mizzou played AT OU.

And let me rephrase about "backing"... They backed their way into beating OU. Which ultimately led to them winning the conference. Is that better? I didn't say they backed into 13 wins. But KU beating OU was what made the difference. And they backed their way into that win.

I'm not discrediting KU for having a good season, they should be proud for what they did. I'm just discrediting them for winning the Big 12, because they ultimately won it because of the OU-KU game, which of course, overall was won because OU didn't have Blake.

And for you to say its sour grapes is stupid. I'd be saying the same if it happened to anyone else. Had KU taken OU down to the wire, and lost, without Sherron Collins, and OU's victory was what decided the championship, I would be saying the same thing. At least you can admit KU was fortunate that Blake didn't play... You're not completely off base.

 

[oSuJeff97]

Texas and OU I would agree with but KSU, OSU, and Mizzou have been to the tournament almost the same amount of times 23 each for OSU and KSU and 22 times for Missouri. OSU and KSU have just gone slightly further. Mizzou has been one game short of the final four reaching the elite eight 4 times.

Oh.... well I didn't realize that being "one game short" of the Final Four was basically the same thing as being there.

OSU has actually been to the Final Four six times, and to the Elite Eight 3 other times and won 2 national titles.

So our "actual" Final Fours, plus our "almost" Final Fours still bests Mizzou's "almost" Final Fours, 9-4.

So basically, OSU has been to the tournament more times than Mizzou, and advanced to the Final Four six more times than Mizzou... and won two national titles.

I'll stand by my statement that OSU has "more tradition" than Mizzou.

 

[Cheno]

.
(1) My point is that that in all probability wouldn't have even mattered had Blake played vs. KU. OU beats KU, they win the conference. Plain and simple.

(2) But KU beating OU was what made the difference. And they backed their way into that win.

(1) It's not plain and simple. It's why they play the games. Does Blake defend Sherron and Tyshawn? Because ultimately OU's inability to guard them and letting those two combine for over 50 points is what lost the game.
People can make cases left and right about a game..but that's why they play them. OU probably doesn't hit 11 3's if Blake plays. Instead of hitting all those 3's down the stretch are you saying OU gets 2's with Blake? Pattillo probably doesn't have a huge game if Blake plays. There's what if's all over the place.

(2) No, OU still could have won that game if they were a championship team. Defense wins championships and that is what lost the game.

Like Grace said...it sounds like sour grapes.

 

[ByronHoustonsSweatyPalms]

I thought this thread was about the 2011 Big 12 favorite?

 

[stoops4pres]

(1) It's not plain and simple. It's why they play the games. Does Blake defend Sherron and Tyshawn? Because ultimately OU's inability to guard them and letting those two combine for over 50 points is what lost the game.

It did lose OU the game... Without Blake.

No way does Aldrich own the paint with Blake in the lineup by getting 20 rebounds, and if my memory serves me right a couple of those led to kickback passes for 2nd chance points with Collins and Taylor. So yeah, Griffin does impact the difference in helping out OU's guards.

OU probably doesn't hit 11 3's if Blake plays. Instead of hitting all those 3's down the stretch are you saying OU gets 2's with Blake?

This is irrelevant. They've been on from 3 point line with Blake in the lineup. That season OU had hit 8, 9, 11 3's WITH Blake in the game, so its definitely conceivable that OU had been on from 3 anyways. They may or may not have hit 11, but they had hit close to or the same amount with him in. And Blake's ability and skillset more then makes up the difference otherwise.

Pattillo probably doesn't have a huge game if Blake plays.

Weak assumption. Pattillo had similar results WITH Blake in the lineup during Big 12 play.

No, OU still could have won that game if they were a championship team.

You said yourself awhile back that Collins was the biggest reason KU won the Big 12 last year, and that they do not win without him. Its the exact same concept when discussing Blake. Thanks for reiterating my point.

Like Grace said...it sounds like sour grapes.

And as I said, its not. I would be saying the same if it were reversed otherwise. It just sounds like you're in denial.

 

[gracefor24]

If OU is clearly the best team in the conference and would clearly beat KU with Blake Griffin then YES, I would expect them to beat Mizzou on the road. Kansas lost by 2 at Mizzou and then preceded to beat them by 25 at home. KU was up 14 points at the half and was controlling the entire game, Mizzou hadn't led until they took the lead with 2 seconds left after Collins missed 2 FT's and a layup.

Contrast this to OU who was down 11 at the half and never got closer than 5 points against Mizzou. Mizzou controlled the whole game.

So, again, if OU was CLEARLY the better team than KU then, yes, they should have gone into Missouri and beaten them. To claim one and not the other is just silly. Must be nice to live in the "if" world and start making things up as you please.

Pattilo had his highest scoring game of the year so let's not act as if it was a common occurrence. He had 3 other games in double figures.

I don't think anyone disagrees that KU lucked out against OU but they still had to play the game so to say they "backed" into that win is taking a shot at OU as well, again a weird thing to experience with OU bball fans. You are willing to make your own team look stupid in an effort to insult KU.

 

[Cheno]

Weak assumption.

These two words sum up your entire argument.
That is why they play the games.

 

[Sawyer]

Oh.... well I didn't realize that being "one game short" of the Final Four was basically the same thing as being there.

OSU has actually been to the Final Four six times, and to the Elite Eight 3 other times and won 2 national titles.

So our "actual" Final Fours, plus our "almost" Final Fours still bests Mizzou's "almost" Final Fours, 9-4.

So basically, OSU has been to the tournament more times than Mizzou, and advanced to the Final Four six more times than Mizzou... and won two national titles.

I'll stand by my statement that OSU has "more tradition" than Mizzou.

Congrats.

Now how about you try beating Mizzou in the present.

I believe MU holds an 8-3 advantage over the past 9 seasons.

 

[Sawyer]

Also, I find it hilarious that a thread about the positive direction of Mizzou's future is turned into a discussion about the awesomeness that is kansas (by kansas fans...).

 

[gracefor24]

Also, I find it hilarious that a thread about the positive direction of Mizzou's future is turned into a discussion about the awesomeness that is kansas (by kansas fans...).

Actually, it was a comment by an OU fan that started the lengthy argument. But don't let that get in the way of you taking a shot.

 

[oSuJeff97]

Congrats.

Now how about you try beating Mizzou in the present.

I believe MU holds an 8-3 advantage over the past 9 seasons.

Good for you guys.

I'll trade 3-8 vs. Mizzou in 9 years for our 6 Final Fours.

 

[Sawyer]

The majority of your "tradition" is 60+ years old and came in a time when the NIT and NCAA tournament were in direct competition with one another. There were also far fewer teams in the tournament back then. It didn't take a whole lot to make it to the final four.

You did have an outstanding run under Sutton in the more recent past. But his accomplishments, outside of a few more wins in the NCAA tournament, are no better than what Norm did in the 80s and early/mid 90s (Norm actually has more than twice as many Big 8/12 titles in that span than Sutton did).

Of course, none of that really matters today... and today, MU is ahead of OSU.

 

[Sawyer]

Actually, it was a comment by an OU fan that started the lengthy argument. But don't let that get in the way of you taking a shot.

Try again.

On an OU board, an OU fan pointed out that Griffin missed the game last year AFTER kansas fans were extolling the greatness of Bill Self and the jayhawks. It went from "Who will win it next year?" to "kansas has won X of Y!!!" to "OU with/without Griffin vs. kansas."

 

[stoops4pres]

If OU is clearly the best team in the conference and would clearly beat KU with Blake Griffin then YES, I would expect them to beat Mizzou on the road.

Yeah, okay...That's why OU was 4 point underdogs going into the game. I think I'll take the experts opinion about how tough Mizzou was at home last year more then your's.

Your undervaluing how good Mizzou was at home because they had an off night and were lucky to beat Kansas. They had been great at home otherwise.

Pattilo had his highest scoring game of the year so let's not act as if it was a common occurrence.

Do both of ourselves a favor and make sure you actually read what was posted. I said he had similar results... You KU fans are acting like Patillo's performance was a complete anomaly and wouldn't have posted similar results had Blake been in, when he clearly had proven otherwise. And he would have had more double digit games had it not been 20 games into the season until he had seen significant minutes. He had posted double figures with Blake in, so stop fooling yourself (which has been a common theme in your last couple of posts) and acting like it couldn't have happened again.

So, again, if OU was CLEARLY the better team than KU then, yes, they should have gone into Missouri and beaten them.

No, OU was clearly better because they never got humiliated against one of the worst teams in the conference(does KU getting blown out at 14-19 Tech ring a bell), had a better non conference showing, and went further in the tournament. Thanks for playing.

 

[gracefor24]

Try again.

On an <i>OU</i> board, an OU fan pointed out that Griffin missed the game last year AFTER kansas fans were extolling the greatness of Bill Self and the jayhawks. It went from "Who will win it next year?" to "kansas has won X of Y!!!" to "OU with/without Griffin vs. kansas."

Try again.

An OU fan pointed out that it was impossible for one program to win the conference title 8 out of 10 years. I simply pointed out that Self has already done it 6 out of 7. Then another OU fan made the comment about the OU without Griffin game.

It was within the context of the original post until the OU fan felt it necessary to bring up the game last year.

 

[stoops4pres]

These two words sum up your entire argument.
That is why they play the games.

I prove why your assumption is weak with numbers, you say my assumption is weak just because you say so.... Now that's comical.

 

[gracefor24]

Yeah, okay...That's why OU was 4 point underdogs going into the game. I think I'll take the experts opinion about how tough Mizzou was at home last year more then your's.



Do both of ourselves a favor and make sure you actually read what was posted. I said he had similar results... You KU fans are acting like Patillo's performance was a complete anomaly and wouldn't have posted similar results had Blake been in, when he clearly had proven otherwise. And he would have had more double digit games had it not been 20 games into the season until he had seen significant minutes. He had posted double figures with Blake in, so stop fooling yourself (which has been a common theme in your last couple of posts) and acting like it couldn't have happened again.



No, OU was clearly better because they never got humiliated against one of the worst teams in the conference(does KU getting blown out at 14-19 Tech ring a bell), had a better non conference showing, and went further in the tournament. Thanks for playing.

You're right, bro. OU had no chance to win at Missouri, even though they were clearly better than the team that should have beaten Missouri at home and beat them by 25 later. KU did back into the championship because they were played OU without Griffin and OU had no chance to beat KU without Griffin. I'm sure Capel and OU's players believed that in their hearts. Pattillo was a dominant player in many games and despite the fact that KU was his highest scoring game it was really an average game for him.

You are ultimately wise and we bow to your superior knowledge.