I realize that UT fans dominate in this thread................but that doesn't bother me. Does it matter that much if they are the #1 or the #2 in a bracket? I can see a point of difference between #1 and #6...........but the bracket difference between #1 and #2 seems marginal at most (in terms of strength of opponents, not the ego factor). The difference is primarily in location. Getting a #1 could mean UT playing in San Antonio. Getting a #2 would likely mean UT playing in New York. That's really the only biggie, in my opinion. How on earth can the committee justify putting OU over UT when they have equal credentials and UT won both meetings this year? Conference tournaments don't mean a damn thing for good teams. (1) Head-to-head is irrelevent as far as selection criteria go. (2) Conference tournaments do mean something to the committee. The committee looks at the resume as a whole, and that includes conference tournaments. OU lost twice to Texas. They also beat KU. The fact that they didn't have to play anyone to win the tourney is irrelevent. They will have beaten a team that spanked UT the previous day and a team that beat KU the previous day. Most importantly, they will be the only team to have beaten everyone that was put against them in the tournament, meaning they will have ended the season the strongest of the big 3 teams. Bottom line: Let's play the games, and committee I dare you to give UT a number 2 seed, because if so you can watch them use it as motivation and get to New Orleans, but they stand a great chance of getting there anyway. If UT needs extra motivation to get to a Final Four, they don't deserve to be there anyway. Snubs do nothing in terms of inspiring teams unless the team isn't motivated on its own. Daring the committee to do something? WTF?
Mediocre? My patootie! Seriosly, what do you think are Tech's chances of getting a bid to the NCAA's? I feel we're 50/50 right now. Not that we're in the same category of Kansas, UT, or Oklahoma... for now. I, PERSONALLY. think we should be the best team in the bottom 9. Again, our record doesn't indicate it. But I still think we should get a bid over Mizzou. Anyway, what do y'all think?
You arent the best team in the bottom 9 Fatty, Missouri and OSU are better. You are better than Colorado overall, but I think Tech is shut out. BGM, A conference tournament is not a real championship, the only reason they exist is because the conferences want the TV exposure and money. But even so..... Texas still has a better resume than both Kansas and OU, and even if they are equal, UT beat OU both times head to head. So how is this all that hard to understand: when two teams are similar in rankings, RPI, etc, but one team convincingly won the season series, as UT did with OU, how is the team that lost the head to head matchups getting to leap the other team that beat them twice. Excuse me, Kansas lost to Missouri, Texas to Tech, Wake Forest to NC State, Florida to LSU, Arizona to UCLA. Do you see a trend there? Also, if OU had beat Kansas and Texas to win the tournament, then yes I could see ranking them ahead of either school, but not when they beat 3 mediocre teams. Colorado, Missouri and Tech all have major flaws. Did UT screw up losing to Tech? Yes. But it doesn't change the fact that conference tournaments are still pointless and hurt good teams while favoring underdogs. Nor does it change the fact UT has a better or equal resume to Kansas or Oklahoma, and has the season series from OU. If head to head means anything, you just can't justify pushing OU past UT, because if we went by your logic, a team with a losing record like UCLA or USC if they had won the Pac 10 tournament, would get a better seed than say Stanford or Cal, two top 25 teams who had winning records and did well all year. That is not right. Sure I want the best for my longhorns, but this time I have a legitmate gripe, and don't act like you have no biases in this matter either. Any of us from chat know how much you despise UT. I'm just baffled at the number of people who really have forgotten who won the season series between UT and OU this year. Was the hangover so bad that some of you can't remember who beat who last Saturday? Because if not, I have no clue why we are even discussing this issue. It makes no sense if you ask me.
Major, Head to Head record is not irrelevant when you are discussing two teams as close at UT or OU. If that's the case, why even play the games for that level of importance. And pardon me that conference tournaments prove nothing. You know this, I know this, the results around America verify this. And when I made the last statement about daring the committee to give UT a 2 in pitt's bracket, was in vain to what happened to the Sooners last year and how they used the added motivation to get to the final four. I'm just ticked off that the guys predicting the field on CBS and ESPN have pushed OU in front of UT if they beat Missouri tommorrow because the teams are extremely close, yet UT won the season series without a serious lucky break. I don't disagree it may happen, but I do not think that is how seeding should be done, and UT is still one of my 4 picks to reach New Orleans. They had the motivation to win it all year, I was just saying putting OU in front could make them feel slighted like OU did last year, and help propel them a long way. But you're right, take care of business this weekend and we wouldn't have to sweat it out.
i'm usually one of those people who tends to not see my own teams as great while thinking other teams are (especially this ut bball team b/c i still have trouble considering us an elite bball team just b/c we have never been before) but i think UT deserves this #1 seed for the simple fact we beat ou both times. this isn't kansas beating us by 3 at kansas. we beat them here, we beat them there. that's as clear as it can get for me in terms of who should get the season edge when both teams now have an equal number of losses. i know football and basketball aren't the same, but it seemed everybody (tv people, analysts, fans) would have had a freakin conniption if at any point in the cfb season UT had somehow been ranked ahead of ou just b/c we lost to them. as if it would somehow violate sacred laws of the universe and we would all cease to exist if that happened. head-to-head was considered the ultimate factor. and now we have beaten ou both times and it doesn't count so much anymore. to me we're basically comparing a lesser performance in the tourney to two head to head wins. i have to think the head to head wins have the advantage, especially since the last one is very recent history. even if the committee doesn't directly look at head to head, i would hope they notice the name ou listed twice under quality wins for us. as for ku, i just can't see them losing the #1 b/c they seemed to be pretty locked into it before the tourney. az and ky were rock solid #1's and kansas was pretty much guaranteed being one of the two big 12 number 1's. i just don't see that changing no matter how valid the argument is b/c i've heard too many analysts and such give them the #1 and say ou/UT were fighting for the other one. pitt has no claim to a #1. nobody else does either. it's ou or UT, we best win b/c i need to beat ou in as many things as possible to make up for my first 2.5 years here.
Even OU fans at the bar said UT was a lock for the #1 seed. OU shouldn't get a #1 over OU. KU is ina more precarious situation than some would believe.
Don't we go through this every year? We sit around, and overvalue the conference tourney's in regards to seeding and then get shocked, absolutely shocked, I tell you, when the selection committee suddenly pays them little heed. Especially this year, when a number of favorites got bounced early in their tourneys. The selection committee isn't going to take away a No. 1 seed from Texas for their slip, just like they aren't going to punish Florida, Arizona, Wake et al, for slipping in the meaningless money-makers. RPI 3,4,5 - Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. No signficant diffentiation there. Schedule Strength Texas - 3 OU - 6 Kansas - 7 Again closely bunched up, but I feel they fail to take into account that Texas played 6 games against teams in the RPI top ten, and half were on the road, two were at nuetral sites, and only one was a home game - against Oklahoma. Texas went 3-3 in those games. Kansas played three, two at home, one on the road. Kansas went 1-2 in those games. Oklahoma also only played three teams, going 1-2 in those games. When it comes to games against the cream of the crop, Texas played more than its competition, in tougher environs and fared better than its two competitors for the #1 did. In my opinion, the difference in the schedule should be greater than is indicated up there. Texas also did two things that neither Oklahoma, nor Kansas did. First, Texas has a marquee road win - they went on the road, into a raucous arena, and snapped the longest home winning streak in the nation. Neither Oklahoma, nor Kansas can show that they've beaten a top opponent on the road as Texas has. Texas also protected its homecourt, not dropping a single game there, whereas both Kansas and Oklahoma have home losses on their record.
If we are looking at criteria for the tourney, and there seems to be some debate over that, check out this link. http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http:/...cat=sprt&ac=21&page=1&kbid=412248&io=0&more=1 Yes, it is long. The most interesting thing I found in it was this: 10. At any time during the process, the chair may request a "nitty-gritty" report, which compares teams that are under consideration. 11. The elements of the "nitty-gritty" report are: Division I record; Overall RPI; Non-conference record; Non-conference RPI; Conference record; Conference RPI; Road record; Record in last 10 games; Record against teams ranked 1-50 by RPI; Record against teams ranked 51-100 by RPI; Record against teams ranked 101-200 by RPI; Record against teams ranked below 200 by RPI; Record against other teams that are under consideration (i.e., "board teams"). That last line seems to apply the best to our current OU-Texas debate. Although I was under the impression that head to head doesn't necessarily matter in seeding, I guess that's because it's a small component of something like this, rather than a major criteria. I'm sure we all agree it would be just difficult to ignore or forget certain head to head matchups. Anyway, a helpful read....to me, at least.....
Of course I would love to have the #1 seed, and I am not making the following statement b/c we lost and may not get it, I am saying it b/c it makes since. The higher ranked you are, the more perks you get such as playing closest to home. Hell, I have no problem being the #2 seed in a more regional friendly bracket as opposed to say being #1 in the East or other region and playing as more of a road team as a result of being closer to our opponents home. If each team does their job, it will be 1 vs. 2 regardless. Are your chances better or worse to be a #2 close to home or be a #1 and not have as much fan support? I would chose playing in the South region.
No chance of UT being a #2 seed in the south. Whoever the #1 seed is will raise hell. Committee likes to take care of it's #1s.
Who/what was annoying? The fact that Tech dominated the game from start to finish? They showed Knight walking towards the exit at the end of the game and some stupid fan threw something at him. Needless to say, Knight was a little pissed.....
The fans at the bar were annoying. I can't remember the last time I was at a bar where UT fans chanted Rick Barnes' name the whole game.
I thought that was the game yesterday, not Friday. Well, I know it happened yesterday for sure...maybe it happened two nights in a row. Wouldn't surprise me with a jackass like Knight (not that I ever condone throwing **** at people).
Yeah it was the game yesterday.... my bad. Its kind of like Charles Barkley with Knight..... You hated him when he was with the Suns/Indiana but you love him when he is helping your team win Rockets/Texas Tech. Im sure I would hate him if he coached Texas or any other team for that matter, but gotta respect the dude for getting the job done.
Cause they're annoying. (You do realize I'm talking about the moronic Tech fans who were chanting Bobby Knight's name, right? That prompted my chants of "NIT, NIT")
Chanting "Rick Barnes" would have funny too. Until Friday night, I don't think Tech had ever beat Barnes.
