OU and the Bubble...

[WichitaSooner]

With OU being as "locked in" as they almost are, just goes to the state of college basketball. Regardless of OOC record or wins, no team that goes 6-12 in their conference should get in. And in most years, I don't think they would. But this is one week field that we are almost certainly going to benefit from.

So after weeks of suggesting that we won't get in, and in a way preemptively counting this season as a missed tourney appearance on Lon's ledger, now the argument is shifting to "well, we might make it, but we don't really deserve it." And for someone who keeps touting a love for facts, you are expressing an opinion when you say a 6-12 team should never get in. I'm sure that if we make it, you will then ignore the fact that we have made 6 out of the last 7 and instead focus on your subjective assessment that (a) we made last year in part due to Trae, and (b) we made this year not because of our merit but because of other team's deficiencies and because the committee is stupid to not factor in conference record.

There do seem to be plenty of sites suggesting that one more win (West Virginia) will be enough. The Athletic went so far as suggesting that if we win that game, we will essentially be playing with house money in our final two games. I'm not quite that confident because you never know how many bids will be stolen in conference tourneys, and it's also possible that a team currently on the wrong side of the bubble will get hot down the stretch and pass us. But if we do end up 6-12, and we make the tournament, nothing will be more tiresome than hearing people say we didn't deserve a bid, but failing to identify specific teams who should have gotten in over us.

 

[NY Soonerfan]

But if we do end up 6-12, and we make the tournament, nothing will be more tiresome than hearing people say we didn't deserve a bid, but failing to identify specific teams who should have gotten in over us.

Well said. Give me "it's a line drive in the box score" any day of the week. We made it. We are in. That's all that matters. We are all 0-0 going forward.

 

[WTSooner]

I don't think we are anywhere remotely close to "locked in" at 6-12. We'd be a coin flip, at best, with that record. All bets are off if we finish 6-12.

The only way we don't get in at 6-12 is if we also lose in the first round of the Big 12 Tourney. Beat WVU and win that first Big 12 Tourney game, and unless something crazy happens, we're in.

 

[stormspencer]

But if we do end up 6-12, and we make the tournament, nothing will be more tiresome than hearing people say we didn't deserve a bid, but failing to identify specific teams who should have gotten in over us.

Yep....I don't like the idea of a 6-12 conference record more than anyone else, but who is going to be put in front of us (a team with 10 combined Q1/Q2 wins and zero Q3/Q4 losses)? Down the stretch (with the exception of Syracuse) all of these other bubble teams we are competing with are losing some games as well and albeit to lesser competition in a lot of cases.

 

[cjhsooner]

This team making it in will be just like last year, a 1 and done team who will lose to an also-ran program.

 

[Hollisp]

So after weeks of suggesting that we won't get in, and in a way preemptively counting this season as a missed tourney appearance on Lon's ledger, now the argument is shifting to "well, we might make it, but we don't really deserve it." And for someone who keeps touting a love for facts, you are expressing an opinion when you say a 6-12 team should never get in. I'm sure that if we make it, you will then ignore the fact that we have made 6 out of the last 7 and instead focus on your subjective assessment that (a) we made last year in part due to Trae, and (b) we made this year not because of our merit but because of other team's deficiencies and because the committee is stupid to not factor in conference record.

There do seem to be plenty of sites suggesting that one more win (West Virginia) will be enough. The Athletic went so far as suggesting that if we win that game, we will essentially be playing with house money in our final two games. I'm not quite that confident because you never know how many bids will be stolen in conference tourneys, and it's also possible that a team currently on the wrong side of the bubble will get hot down the stretch and pass us. But if we do end up 6-12, and we make the tournament, nothing will be more tiresome than hearing people say we didn't deserve a bid, but failing to identify specific teams who should have gotten in over us.

Well said and it’s what several on here kept saying and people refused to look at facts or read any articles (even articles we shared) showing the facts that OU is in bc of their non conf sos. Again, gotta beat WVU and the picture looks bright.
Can’t understand being that hard headed. Used to be that way then I got married ��

 

[Hollisp]

This team making it in will be just like last year, a 1 and done team who will lose to an also-ran program.

Do you want OU to be in? Or are you wanting an NIT number 1 seed?

 

[BoulderSooner]

The only way we don't get in at 6-12 is if we also lose in the first round of the Big 12 Tourney. Beat WVU and win that first Big 12 Tourney game, and unless something crazy happens, we're in.

i tend to agree with this ...


2 wins to lock

 

[Eielson]

But if we do end up 6-12, and we make the tournament, nothing will be more tiresome than hearing people say we didn't deserve a bid, but failing to identify specific teams who should have gotten in over us.

There's a difference between being the best available option and being truly deserving. It's not a difficult concept.

Look at college football for an example. The common perspective is that 2-loss teams don't deserve to play for the National Championship. That's mostly true now, but was even more true before the CFP. Yet in 2007, there really wasn't any other option than to put in a 2 loss LSU in the game. Did they deserve it? Not according to the idea that 2 loss teams shouldn't play for the title. But were they the best choice out of a bunch of bad choices? Probably.

Fast forward to 2014. There were 5 1-loss teams fighting for 3 spots (FSU was undefeated). All 5 teams were deserving of the chance and had resumes that would have beaten out that 2007 LSU team for the spot. Unfortunately for TCU and Baylor (and fortunately for LSU), some years are just chaotic.

 

[sheepdogs1]

Do you want OU to be in? Or are you wanting an NIT number 1 seed?

If it were to be an either or situation would you rather OU wins the NIT or lose in the 1st round? This is purely a hypothetical, so please refrain from the "you want OU in the NIT" crap.

 

[Eielson]

I've yet to see a single poster on here say they don't want this team to go to the tournament, deserving or not, so it's time for that witch trial to stop.

 

[WTSooner]

There's a difference between being the best available option and being truly deserving. It's not a difficult concept.

Exactly. Those early conversations were, for the most part, based on what we deserved. I don't think many were doing a detailed breakdown of the bubble five weeks ago. Maybe some were. I just knew our overall resume, especially conference record, was going to be something that no team ever got in with without winning the conference tournament.

 

[Hollisp]

If it were to be an either or situation would you rather OU wins the NIT or lose in the 1st round? This is purely a hypothetical, so please refrain from the "you want OU in the NIT" crap.

I’ll take an NCAA loss every year over an NIT title and it’s not close.

 

[WichitaSooner]

The tournament is designed to include the best 68 teams in a given year (obviously with the caveat that many of the automatic qualifiers aren't among the 68 best teams). But the basic premise is, the best 36 (I think that is the correct number) at large teams in the country in any given year make it. So if you are one of those teams, yes, you deserve to be in. The fact that you might not have been as good as team number 36 in a different year is completely irrelevant. It would be like saying well, the Patriots won their sixth Super Bowl this year, but they clearly weren't as good as most/all of their previous championship teams, so they don't really deserve it this season. BS. We are competing against other teams THIS SEASON for a spot in the 2019 tournament. We aren't competing against teams from the past, so this is just another stupid, irrelevant way for people to take shots at this year's team. And to top it all off, the claim that "this year's bubble is terrible" is made just about every season. I'd challenge any of you to go back and find any examples, since the field expanded to 68, where analysts were saying, "man, this is a great bubble, there are tons of deserving teams who will be left out."

Again, the funniest part is that for weeks, many of you were adamant that we wouldn't make it without at least 8 conference wins. After finally seeing that you were wrong, the argument shifted to saying that we might make it, but don't "deserve it."

 

[Eielson]

The fact that you might not have been as good as team number 36 in a different year is completely irrelevant. It would be like saying well, the Patriots won their sixth Super Bowl this year, but they clearly weren't as good as most/all of their previous championship teams, so they don't really deserve it this season. BS. We are competing against other teams THIS SEASON for a spot in the 2019 tournament. We aren't competing against teams from the past, so this is just another stupid, irrelevant way for people to take shots at this year's team.

First off, it's completely relevant, as it's the topic of discussion. You can't just scream "IRRELEVANT" over and over when you don't like what's said.

Second, you completely botched the comparison, unless you're predicting OU will win the national title. All comparisons have flaws, but you missed the mark by a country mile on this one. The Patriots didn't squeak into the playoffs with a 6-10 record and make a quick exit -- they won 3 playoff games in order to claim the title. If OU wins all their playoff/tournament games to claim the National Title, we'll have a different discussion.

Let's fix your comparison. The 2010 Seattle Seahawks made it into the playoffs with a losing record (7-9) because the NFC West was historically bad that year. Did that Seahawks team deserve to be in the playoffs? I say no.

And to top it all off, the claim that "this year's bubble is terrible" is made just about every season. I'd challenge any of you to go back and find any examples, since the field expanded to 68, where analysts were saying, "man, this is a great bubble, there are tons of deserving teams who will be left out."

I agree. The bubble is always bad, but that's irrelevant.

 

[stormspencer]

Bubble teams in action tonight:
Clemson (@Pitt)....Clemson is "last 4 in"-ish
UCF (@South Florida)....UCF is current projected 11 seed
Ole Miss (Tennessee)....Ole Miss is currently projected 8/9 seed.
Texas (@Baylor)....Texas is currently projected 9/10 seed.
Florida (@Vandy)....UF is currently projected 10/11 seed.
Auburn (@Georgia)....Auburn is currently projected 8/9 seed.

All projections above per Bracket Matrix. For comparison, OU is a projected 9-seed currently.

 

[Hollisp]

Again, the funniest part is that for weeks, many of you were adamant that we wouldn't make it without at least 8 conference wins. After finally seeing that you were wrong, the argument shifted to saying that we might make it, but don't "deserve it."

Goal post moving by this group is steeeerong. I’ve been wrong many many times in life. Prolly a lot more than most on here. It’s ok to say “oh I was wrong, or oh I was misinformed” but the changing narrative to win an online message board issue is bizarre to me.

Things I’ve been wrong about with OU basketball
-After his RS Frosh year: JA$ would be a fringe Big 12 POY by the time he left OU.
-Kruger would retire last year.
-Trae was def gonna stay 2 years bc he was unseasoned defensively.
-Blake would leave after 1 year
-I was the biggest fanboy of Capel even AFTER he got fired (def my worst take)

The list goes on.

 

[WichitaSooner]

First off, it's completely relevant, as it's the topic of discussion. You can't just scream "IRRELEVANT" over and over when you don't like what's said.

No, it is not the topic of discussion. The discussion has been what OU needs to do in its remaining games to make the tournament. Those of us who analyzed all the projections and concluded that we need x-number of additional wins to make it never once speculated on whether that would have been enough in any previous year.

So, like conference record, record against teams in the top half of the league, whether Trae Young is on the roster, record against teams who primarily wear orange and are from east of the Mississippi River, etc., it is, by definition, not relevant in a discussion of what OU needs to do to make this year's field. if you want to have a philosophical debate about whether the criteria should be different, that's perfectly fine. It just shouldn't be used to support an argument about what needs to happen in the next two weeks for us to end up on the right side of the bubble on March 17.

 

[thebigabd]

Goal post moving by this group is steeeerong. I’ve been wrong many many times in life. Prolly a lot more than most on here. It’s ok to say “oh I was wrong, or oh I was misinformed” but the changing narrative to win an online message board issue is bizarre to me.

Things I’ve been wrong about with OU basketball
-After his RS Frosh year: JA$ would be a fringe Big 12 POY by the time he left OU.
-Kruger would retire last year.
-Trae was def gonna stay 2 years bc he was unseasoned defensively.
-Blake would leave after 1 year
-I was the biggest fanboy of Capel even AFTER he got fired (def my worst take)

The list goes on.

• I thought Longar Longar would develop into an NBA player.
• I thought Austin Johnson would play in the NBA.
• I have started multiple threads touting Hannes Polla.
• I have been wrong about Texas Tech a million times, and when I gave up on them they became legitimately good.
• I always thought Nebraska (back in the original Big 12 days) was super close to becoming relevant
• I blamed Trae Young for last year

I think most of us who post quite a bit have a list of things we were wrong about.

 

[Ghost of Gar Heard]

I have a friend who's an Ohio St fan. Multiple times, maybe 6 or 7 years ago when their football team was making it to the playoff only to get blown out by teams like Florida, he told me with a straight face and 100% conviction that he didn't want Ohio St to make the playoff because they were going to get blown out. It would be embarrassing bc, in his mind, they didn't deserve to be there, weren't good enough, etc. I thought It was absurd then and believe it's absurd now. I'm not glad USC beat OU in that National Championship game by about 100 but it helps the program to have played in 1 more title game and you can't win it if you're not in the game.

Titles matter. The ability to hang banners matters. Making the tournament matters but there is little doubt that there are OU fans who would rather the team play in the NIT & win a few games than go 1 & done in the NCAA tournament...losing to some "also-ran" team or whatever term was used to describe the 7 seed we would play in the 1st round.

I don't agree with that position and think it's absurd bc, at the end of the day, you want to be able to tell recruits you've made the tournament 6 out of the last 7 years, or x-number of years in a row. Losing in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament is miles better than winning any number of games in the NIT. But there's no doubt that OU has some fans just like my Ohio St friend.