Clowns vs OU
- Thread starter LarryMullenJr.
- Start date
And Bilas is right, OU looks tired from their WVU game.
That said, Clones have learned to play some defense lately which has made them play a bit better.
That said, Clones have learned to play some defense lately which has made them play a bit better.
From what I can tell, Iowa State doesn’t run an offense. One guy dribbles and 4 guys stand around waiting for the ball. No one screens, no one cuts, no one does anything but watch the ball handler try to beat his guy.
How many times has Brent’s mic picked up the guy behind him saying “bull$*@#?”
I'll never go to Bacon Fest now either................ What a stupid suit. BACON CLOWN!!!!
Is that what that suit was supposed to be? That dude looked pathetic.
As an ISU fan I'll even admit this is really good. Well done!
Yea, he puts on Bacon Fest. The suit is from Loud Mouth Clothes. Mark Calcavechia wore those last year in the Principal Classic at Wakonda.
No chance. Even with high seeds again this year no team in Big 12 is Elite 8 material.
Black and gold glasses aside, the B1G top to bottom is a lot stronger than the Big 12, which has 3 or 4 good teams.
The Big 12 has 5 teams ranked right now and I think most Hawkeye fans will agree the B1G appears to be down this year
The B1G has 5 as well. Again, I said top to bottom I think the B1G is stronger. Regardless, what a crazy year it's been in college basketball. Before the season had anyone said Iowa would be ranked higher than ISU at this point, I would've called them nuts.
Well, Oklahoma's offense is the same thing. Geez, I've never seen 3 or 4 guys just standing around watching a game on offense this much. When these team play teams that run alot of stuff and have similar athletes they are going to have big trouble. My guess is Kansas wins the B12. Heild or whatever his name is can really score though...wow...give him a sliver of room and he gets that shot off...pretty impressive.
They both have 5 ranked teams but the Big Ten has 4 more teams. The bottom 5 for the Big 12 in KenPom:
Kansas State - 47
Texas Tech - 51
Texas - 53
Oklahoma State - 82
TCU - 141
The bottom 5 of the Big Ten in KenPom
Nebraska - 89
Illinois - 116
Penn State - 134
Minnesota - 205
Rutgers - 280
This is interesting. The bottom of the B1G really is bad. I'm not claiming Rutgers, they're a joke, and Jim Delaney owns personal responsibility for them. Meanwhile, in the B12 everyone but TCU is a possible winner on any given night.
As far as teams likely to make a run, I also question whether the B12 gets a team past the sweet 16 this year. It's more a function of no team in CBB being head and shoulders better than anyone else. See UVA, UNC, or Maryland for example. Good teams that can lose.
OU relies so heavily on Hield and 3 point shooting, they could easily make an early tournament exit with an off game or foul trouble for Hield.
Or, another way to look at this would be to compare the top ten in each league. In the Big Ten, Nebraska would be the tenth team - ranked 89 currently by your choice, KenPom. That is considerably better than the tenth place, 141st ranked TCU from the big xii.
It is all a matter of perspective.
It's another year and more of the same in the Big 12. Kansas will win the regular season title and all the teams but Kansas will flame out in the tourney. There is one glimmer of hope. Shaka is now head coach of Texas and his teams have had some success in the tourney.
Without a bias I would say the bolded teams look like they play in a stronger league top to bottom. The top 8 teams in the Big 12 are better than the bottom 8 of the Big Ten teams according to KenPom
Kansas - 2
Iowa - 3
Oklahoma - 4
West Virginia - 5
Purdue - 10
Michigan State - 11
Maryland - 14
Iowa State - 19
Baylor - 20
Indiana - 26
Michigan - 30
Kansas State - 47
Texas Tech - 51
Texas - 53
Wisconsin - 59
Northwestern - 71
Ohio State - 79
Oklahoma State - 82
Nebraska - 89
Illinois - 116
Penn State - 134
TCU - 141
Minnesota - 205
Rutgers - 280
I would say Iowa States conference schedule is a bit tougher from games 1-18.
Of course, a large part of that discrepency can be attributed to the fact that we've given everyone an extra loss, and we mysteriously don't play the first place team even once. For example, Michigan is in the Others receiving votes and would certainly be Top 25 if they had beaten Iowa. Baylor has gotten into the top 15 in no small part because of their win at ISU. If those Results were flipped, Michigan would certainly be ranked higher than Baylor.
Of course, a large part of that discrepency can be attributed to the fact that we've given everyone an extra loss, and we mysteriously don't play the first place team even once. For example, Michigan is in the Others receiving votes and would certainly be Top 25 if they had beaten Iowa. Baylor has gotten into the top 15 in no small part because of their win at ISU. If those Results were flipped, Michigan would certainly be ranked higher than Baylor.
Looks can be deceiving... from where I sit, the difference is not that significant until one gets to the very bottom. Comparing ten teams to ten teams (because that is all the big xii can get) 'looks' to slightly favor the Big Ten.
Averaging the top ten from the Big Ten results in a ranking below 40 (39.2). Is that better or worse than the top ten teams from the big xii?
(BTW - you are as biased as everyone else, myself included) is here.)
You can't take out the bottom teams for one conference and not the bottom teams from the other conference when you're trying to argue one conference is stronger than the other top to bottom
It is not the Big Ten's fault (nor the SEC, ACC, Pac 12) that they are able to attract and maintain more member-institutions to each conference. Why should the big xii be given special consideration here?
I do not recall the cry and hue of big xii fans during football season telling the world how advantageous it is to be able to play teams like Kansas, isu, Texas Tech (and recently West Virginia) every year. That is 30% (40% including WV) of not really challenging conference competition each season.
You began with a faulty premise - that being the big xii is obviously better 'top to bottom' without regard to why that might be. Now, it should be evident that the very bottom of the Big Ten is struggling more so than perhaps is usual (Minnesota, Illinois). That is the difference maker in your scenario. It should also be clear to now see that if the two conferences were to match teams using your preferred ranking system head to head that hypothetically the Big Ten would come out ahead based on those rankings. The averages of the best ten teams from each league indicates that.
The difference is that the big xii would not have enough teams to compete after a 10-10 match up between Nebraska and TCU. No one knows how good/bad any additional team from the big xii would be.
Similar threads
