OU and the Bubble...

[Hollisp]

Here's my 68 listed below (in order). After going through it all, I think we're closer to an 8 than we are a 10 (though I'd MUCH rather have a 10). The teams/resumes we're competing against just completely stink beyond belief. After the first 10 teams overall, I really think you can throw the rest of the names against the wall and seed the 3's-6's in about any order you want.

Last four in: TCU, Arizona State, NC State, Furman
First four out: Clemson, St. John's, Belmont, Temple

1 - Duke, Virginia, UNC, Michigan State/Gonzaga
2 - Michigan State/Gonzaga, Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan
3 - Houston, LSU, Purdue, Florida State
4 - Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Kansas
5 - Iowa State, Villanova, Miss State, Kansas State
6 - Auburn, Marquette, Louisville, Maryland
7 - Cincinnati, Buffalo, Wofford, Nevada
8 - Seton Hall, Utah State, Syracuse, Minnesota
9 - Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma, Ohio State
10 - St. Mary's, Central Florida, Washington, VCU
11 - Baylor, Ole Miss, TCU *, Arizona State *
12 - NC State *, Furman *, Oregon, New Mexico State
13 - Liberty, Murray State, UC-Irvine, A-10
14 - Northeastern, Vermont, ODU, Ivy
15 - Montana, Bradley, Colgate, Northern Kentucky
16 - Georgia State, Abilene Christian, North Dakota State, Gardner-Webb
P/I - Fairleigh Dickinson/Iona, NC-Central/Prairie View A+M

This is amazing! Thanks for your work.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Imagine that not even really on the bubble Wonder who has been saying that for weeks

 

[WTSooner]

Also, regardless of what conference ranking system you use, when a team gets the top 3 seeds in the Dance, and places another 4 teams in for good measure, that is the best conference.

 

[oudna]

Also, regardless of what conference ranking system you use, when a team gets the top 3 seeds in the Dance, and places another 4 teams in for good measure, that is the best conference.

ACC definitely strongest at the top

Unfortunately the Big 12 is the best overall by every metric I’ve seen

You can’t use in-conference games to support arguments of overall strength. This has been decided since January.

 

[WTSooner]

You can’t use in-conference games to support arguments of overall strength. This has been decided since January.

Which is exactly why it's a dumb measurement. It literally ignores half the season, which is why I ignore such ratings.

 

[oudna]

Which is exactly why it's a dumb measurement. It literally ignores half the season, which is why I ignore such ratings.

It’s still the only way conferences can be measured against each other

 

[skyvue]

Which is exactly why it's a dumb measurement. It literally ignores half the season, which is why I ignore such ratings.

Really? Because plenty of posters on this board have been ignoring half the season -- the first half -- for weeks, as they insisted incessantly that OU was at risk of not making the tourney.

 

[WTSooner]

Really? Because plenty of posters on this board have been ignoring half the season -- the first half -- for weeks, as they insisted incessantly that OU was at risk of not making the tourney.

And we were at risk. Lose to KU? We're right on the bubble. Lose to KU and either one of the TCU or UT games? We're likely out. Most were trying to say we were in for sure at 6-12. I still just don't think that definitely would have been the case. Folks act like we're easily in b/c we're the last 9 seed. Truth is, one or two games could have knocked us out. That's still "bubblish" IMO.

 

[WichitaSooner]

And we were at risk. Lose to KU? We're right on the bubble. Lose to KU and either one of the TCU or UT games? We're likely out. Most were trying to say we were in for sure at 6-12. I still just don't think that definitely would have been the case. Folks act like we're easily in b/c we're the last 9 seed. Truth is, one or two games could have knocked us out. That's still "bubblish" IMO.

I'd challenge you to find many, let alone "most," who said we were a lock at 6-12. My personal take was that 6-12 would put us right on the bubble and would leave us dependent on good fortune, i.e., other bubble teams losing a lot down the stretch and no bid thieves. I know NYSooner had the same take when he broke things down. All along, the consensus among those of us who felt good about our chances was that we needed to win 3 of our last five games to be a lock.

But the fact that we made it with several teams behind us on the true seed list indicates that in retrospect, we actually may have made it with one more loss, at least as a First Four team. But as is, we made it with room to spare.

 

[skyvue]

And we were at risk. Lose to KU? We're right on the bubble. Lose to KU and either one of the TCU or UT games? We're likely out. Most were trying to say we were in for sure at 6-12. I still just don't think that definitely would have been the case. Folks act like we're easily in b/c we're the last 9 seed. Truth is, one or two games could have knocked us out. That's still "bubblish" IMO.

And if I had been starting point guard for this year's squad, we wouldn't have won a single game all season. Luckily, I wasn't, so what's the point of bringing it up?

It's as if you're trying to come up with ways we coulda/shoulda/woulda missed the tourney even after we've made the tourney, just like last year some fans were looking for an "excuse" why we made it ("We only got in because Trae was on the team!") as if to delegitimize our invitation to the tourney after we received it. It's a very strange phenomenon, the rush to discount our team's accomplishment two years in a row.

I think the list of tourney teams that would have missed the tourney if one were to cherry-pick two of their key wins and flip them to losses is probably a long one. Heck, if we had lost to Wofford and Florida, we probably miss the tourney, but so what? We didn't lose to them and we're in.