Shaka Smart at UT

[Zimwillett]

You can argue that the top half of the league was better 15-20 years ago than today (debatable), but no one can make a reasonable argument that the bottom of the league was anywhere close to what it is right now. I miss the Big XII days of beating up on a Melvin Watkins coached aTm 15-20 years ago, plus beating up on Baylor and Colorado, or beating up on the likes of Colorado and Nebraska during the 1980s...just don't have games like that on our schedule any longer.

The real truth of the matter is that K-State was really not very good during the relevant time period. They made the 1996 tournament (last year of the Big 8) and didn't make it again until 2007-08 (after Kelvin left). They had losing records in 1997, 200, 2001, 2002, 2004 and went 14-14 in 2004.

Iowa State wasn't as consistently good as some remember either. They had those fantastic teams in 2000 and 2001, but missed the tournament in '98, 99, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. They had losing records in 2002 and 1998 and went 15-15 in 1999.

Similar deal with Mizzou. They missed the tournament in 96, 97, 98, 04, 05, and 06. So in half the seasons Kelvin was at OU, Mizzou was not a tournament team.

The point is that of these programs were not nearly as consistently good as some seem to be remembering. ISU and Mizzou had a couple of decent stretches, but were not the year in year out powers that some seem to recall. K-State was just flat bad during that early Big 12 era.

 

[WTSooner]

I agree with you, but instead of making a run in the dance every 4 years, I think our expectations should be a little higher.....more like every 2-3 years (or 2 times every 5 years). And by making a run, I mean at least making the second weekend. It's not a big disparity, but I also don't think it is asking too much either.....hell, we did it back to back in 15-16.

And I think a big part of that, being able to make a run, is having more consistent seasons that allow us to get seeds better than 9/10.

 

[Zimwillett]

And that is the point I've been trying to make. OSU and UT, even ISU, had some really, really good teams back then. That impacts "conference strength" every bit as much, and moreso IMO, as how bad the bad teams are. OU should have beaten up on the bottom 2-3 teams in Kelvin's era, and they should be beating up on the bottom 2-3 teams in Lon's era. But NOW, there are more winnable games. There is no FF-caliber OSU or UT team. No Fizer/Tinsley ISU team. When this TT and this KSU team is the best in the conference, the top of the conference is down. OU, even as mediocre as we are this year, had a legit shot in games against those teams. We only won once in six tries against those guys, but NOBODY went into those games thinking we didn't have a shot. Imagine playing that ISU team with this year's OU team? Or a normal KU team? OSU had THREE Elite 8 teams during Kelvin's tenure, 1 a FF team. UT had 2 Elite 8's including 1 FF during Kelvin's tenure. FIVE Sweet 16's. They've had one since (and it wasn't in Lon's tenure).

Top of the Big 12 was SO much tougher back then. How many schools made a FF while Kelvin coached vs when Lon has? I think that is a pretty lopsided number.

ISU had two really really good teams (2000 and 2001 with Fizer and Tinsley). The rest...meh.

 

[WTSooner]

People don't call the ACC the best conference because their bottom teams are better than the bottom teams in other conferences. No, they get called the best conference because they have perennial NC contenders. They talk about those good teams. Not the bad ones.

If you were a mid-level team, would you rather have games against the three best teams to date all of basketball, or would you rather play KU, TT, and KSU? Does it really matter if the rest of your schedule is really, really bad teams, vs pretty bad teams? Not IMO. Give me the schedule against KU, TT, and KSU, b/c those games are winnable. Games against Duke, NC, and UVA aren't.

 

[NickZepp]

Outside of Kansas the Big 12 hasn't really had a 2nd really strong team consistently since the mid 2000s. Maybe one year someone gets close but not really consistently as a program. OSU was pretty solid most years, Texas was a top 10 team most years. OU was for a few years. Iowa State was still always a tough place to visit. That's where you get a national perception of a top conference. Not having every team be solid or around the same level. It's the same with the SEC in football nobody cares that about half that league is totally dead weight.

 

[BCSooners]

I agree with you, but instead of making a run in the dance every 4 years, I think our expectations should be a little higher.....more like every 2-3 years (or 2 times every 5 years). And by making a run, I mean at least making the second weekend. It's not a big disparity, but I also don't think it is asking too much either.....hell, we did it back to back in 15-16.

I agree but to do that it’s usually the same core making both runs. Like price, ere, white & hield, cousins, spangler.

 

[BCSooners]

People don't call the ACC the best conference because their bottom teams are better than the bottom teams in other conferences. No, they get called the best conference because they have perennial NC contenders. They talk about those good teams. Not the bad ones.

If you were a mid-level team, would you rather have games against the three best teams to date all of basketball, or would you rather play KU, TT, and KSU? Does it really matter if the rest of your schedule is really, really bad teams, vs pretty bad teams? Not IMO. Give me the schedule against KU, TT, and KSU, b/c those games are winnable. Games against Duke, NC, and UVA aren't.

If OU was in the ACC it would have a better conference record than it does now.

 

[WTSooner]

If OU was in the ACC it would have a better conference record than it does now.

I don't agree with that. It'd likely be similar, depending on the schedule. But I'd argue we'd have had a lot more automatic losses that we had no chance of winning. At least I feel like we COULD have beaten TT and KSU, and we did beat KU.

We beat the worst team in the ACC by 5 points on a neutral court, when we were playing our best ball.

 

[WTSooner]

Final 4's (excluding OU, 1 each for them) -

In Kelvin's 12 seasons, 3 other teams went to 5 FF's.
In the 13 seasons since, 1 team has been to 3 FF's.

Edit: I think this data may be as of the end of the 2017 season. Was in a hurry.

 

[BCSooners]

I don't agree with that. It'd likely be similar, depending on the schedule. But I'd argue we'd have had a lot more automatic losses that we had no chance of winning. At least I feel like we COULD have beaten TT and KSU, and we did beat KU.

We beat the worst team in the ACC by 5 points on a neutral court, when we were playing our best ball.

So if OU was on the weaker side of the conference then it would have a better record than if it was on the stronger or if everything was neutral side....ok I agree.

 

[BCSooners]

The only reason KSU isn’t top 8 is bc he was out in the OOC, them & TT are legit. KU would be w/o all there missing players (karma is a b$&@h). ISU is good, Baylor & OU are solid. TCU would’ve been top 25 if they had there full roster. It’s closer this year than the past 2 years but the Big12 is the best & if you argue that then you are arguing that the West isn’t better than the East & Lebron had a better roster in his last year with the Cavs.

 

[152219]

Zim posted the RPI conference rankings for the Big 12 earlier in the thread. Here are the Sagarin rankings in the 2000s (unfortunately, his rankings only go to 2000).

Big 12

‘00 5th
‘01 5th
‘02 5th
‘03 1st
‘04 3rd
‘05 3rd
‘06 7th
‘07 2nd
‘08 2nd
‘09 2nd
‘10 1st
‘11 3rd
‘12 2nd
‘13 3rd
‘14 2nd
‘15 1st
‘16 1st
‘17 1st
‘18 1st
‘19 1st

Again, this takes THE ENTIRE CONFERENCE into account, not the top 2-3 teams only.

 

[TINY]

I agree with you, but instead of making a run in the dance every 4 years, I think our expectations should be a little higher.....more like every 2-3 years (or 2 times every 5 years). And by making a run, I mean at least making the second weekend. It's not a big disparity, but I also don't think it is asking too much either.....hell, we did it back to back in 15-16.

That is probably a tad unreasonable considering we have only been to 10 Sweet 16s all time. Having said that, all 10 were in the past 35 years so that is a 3.5 year average. Lon is just off that pace at an average of 4 years between sweet 16s.

 

[Zimwillett]

I just can't stop researching this. I really am interested to see how the conference has improved.

During the relevant period, the six teams that were consistently (not always) at the bottom of the Big 8/Big 12 conference (Baylor, A&M, Nebraska, K-State, Colorado, and Texas Tech) received a total of 8 NCAA tournament berths in 66 seasons played (~12%). The bids break down as follows:

Baylor: 0
Texas A&M: 1 (12 seed in 2006)
Nebraska: 1 (11 seed in 1998)
Kansas St: 1 (10 seed in 1996)
Colorado: 2 (9 seed in 1997, 10 seed in 2003)
Texas Tech: 3 (6 seed in 2002, 8 seed in 2004, 6 seed in 2005)

That's 9 games which most seasons were against non tournament level teams, or at best, low to moderate seeds. More often than not many of those teams had losing overall records (literally). OU was expected to win those games, home or away. Doesn't mean it always happened, but that's what you'd expect. In other words, you basically started most seasons assuming you'd finish somewhere in the top half of the conference given how poor the bottom half was.

To his credit, Kelvin went 84-18 (~83%) during regular season conference play vs. those teams. Kelvin went 128-60 in conference play at OU. That means basically two thirds of his conference wins came vs. teams that were consistently not tournament level teams. This dynamic simply does not exist in the Big 12 anymore.

 

[TINY]

I think 152219 and Zim just shut it down.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I don't agree with that. It'd likely be similar, depending on the schedule. But I'd argue we'd have had a lot more automatic losses that we had no chance of winning. At least I feel like we COULD have beaten TT and KSU, and we did beat KU.

We beat the worst team in the ACC by 5 points on a neutral court, when we were playing our best ball.

This might be the dumbest argument of all. Let's think about this. If I had to play six tennis matches, would I have a better chance to have a better record if I had to play Federer, Nadal, plus four crappy high school kids, or if I had to play six good college players? In the first scenario, I'd probably not win a single point against Federer and Nadal, but would have a pretty good chance to win the other four. In the second scenario, I'd get destroyed by all six even though none of the college guys are anywhere near the level of Fed and Nadal.

Now I'm sure some of you will immediately point out that this isn't a perfect analogy. Of course not. But it illustrates the point that a few of you refuse to accept. Dismiss it all you want but the overall strength of a league, and a team's likelihood of winning a certain numbers of games, has to take into account every team, not just the two or three best. I don't think anyone on here is claiming that the Big 12 this particular season is as likely as the ACC to win the national title. But that is not the one and only determining factor. The AFC East clearly has sucked for 15+ years, even though they have one team who almost assures they have a great shot at winning the Super Bowl.

And no, this doesn't mean I'm happy or satisfied going 7-11 and finishing in the lower half. It does mean that achieving any given win-loss record or place in the standings will be more difficult. Not impossible, but more difficult. Just like it was tougher for Kelvin to dominate the Big 12 than it was for him go 16-2 this season against a lesser league.

 

[stormspencer]

I hate to derail the hijacking of the origin of this thread.....but Shaka beat the Jackrabbits tonight. Texas is onto the Sweet 16.....give him a raise and an extension!

 

[hoopsaustin]

I just can't stop researching this. I really am interested to see how the conference has improved.

During the relevant period, the six teams that were consistently (not always) at the bottom of the Big 8/Big 12 conference (Baylor, A&M, Nebraska, K-State, Colorado, and Texas Tech) received a total of 8 NCAA tournament berths in 66 seasons played (~12%). The bids break down as follows:

Baylor: 0
Texas A&M: 1 (12 seed in 2006)
Nebraska: 1 (11 seed in 1998)
Kansas St: 1 (10 seed in 1996)
Colorado: 2 (9 seed in 1997, 10 seed in 2003)
Texas Tech: 3 (6 seed in 2002, 8 seed in 2004, 6 seed in 2005)

That's 9 games which most seasons were against non tournament level teams, or at best, low to moderate seeds. More often than not many of those teams had losing overall records (literally). OU was expected to win those games, home or away. Doesn't mean it always happened, but that's what you'd expect. In other words, you basically started most seasons assuming you'd finish somewhere in the top half of the conference given how poor the bottom half was.

To his credit, Kelvin went 84-18 (~83%) during regular season conference play vs. those teams. Kelvin went 128-60 in conference play at OU. That means basically two thirds of his conference wins came vs. teams that were consistently not tournament level teams. This dynamic simply does not exist in the Big 12 anymore.

This post swayed me a lot. Well done.

 

[152219]

I just can't stop researching this. I really am interested to see how the conference has improved.

During the relevant period, the six teams that were consistently (not always) at the bottom of the Big 8/Big 12 conference (Baylor, A&M, Nebraska, K-State, Colorado, and Texas Tech) received a total of 8 NCAA tournament berths in 66 seasons played (~12%). The bids break down as follows:

Baylor: 0
Texas A&M: 1 (12 seed in 2006)
Nebraska: 1 (11 seed in 1998)
Kansas St: 1 (10 seed in 1996)
Colorado: 2 (9 seed in 1997, 10 seed in 2003)
Texas Tech: 3 (6 seed in 2002, 8 seed in 2004, 6 seed in 2005)

That's 9 games which most seasons were against non tournament level teams, or at best, low to moderate seeds. More often than not many of those teams had losing overall records (literally). OU was expected to win those games, home or away. Doesn't mean it always happened, but that's what you'd expect. In other words, you basically started most seasons assuming you'd finish somewhere in the top half of the conference given how poor the bottom half was.

To his credit, Kelvin went 84-18 (~83%) during regular season conference play vs. those teams. Kelvin went 128-60 in conference play at OU. That means basically two thirds of his conference wins came vs. teams that were consistently not tournament level teams. This dynamic simply does not exist in the Big 12 anymore.

To go along with that, since Kruger has been the coach ('11-'12 season)

The number of times each team has made the NCAA tourney (8 total seasons)

Baylor- 6
ISU- 7
KU- 8
KSU- 6
OSU- 4
OU-6
Tech- 3
Texas- 5

In 7 seasons
TCU- 1
WVU- 4

Mizzou and A&M were still members of the Big 12 in Kruger's first year.
Mizzou won 30 games and obviously made the tourney. A&M went 14-18 overall and missed the tourney.

So, the bottom 5 teams during Kruger's era

TCU 1-7
Tech 3-8
OSU 4-8
WVU 4-7
Texas 5-8

They collectively made the tournament 17 times in 38 total seasons, which is 45% of the time.

 

[152219]

And now NBA picks (I just counted total from the Big 12 seasons....funny thing is that they counted Ryan Humphrey as a Big 12 player, which I still included because I didn't want to try and pick and choose between players).

'97- 6
'98- 5
'99- 3
'00- 4
'01- 2
'02- 3
'03- 3
'04- 4
'05- 3
'06- 4

37 players in 10 seasons from a 12 team league

'12- 7
'13- 3
'14- 3
'15- 2
'16- 6
'17- 6
'18- 6

33 players in 7 seasons from a 10 team league.

More overall talent in the league as least by NBA standards as well during the current era.

Source: https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-12-Conference/3/nba-draft