Well, Big 12 Outlook was 6-0 again, and I totally called that Texas win, but I'll try to keep my smug satisfaction to a minimum. Oklahoma's loss means tonight's game is well and truly for the Big 12 Championship, except for that nagging little Missouri team that still gets to play both teams. Maybe K-State can do something about that Wednesday to help tonight's victor?
As for the Cats, our tourney prospects remain the same: Win and you're in, lose and you have no one to blame but yourself. Texas is keeping pace with us for now, but their closing schedule is harder than ours and besides - if we do what we need to do, the Big 12 will be a 5-bid league and it won't matter anyway. At least our Texas win carries more weight; we and Missouri are the only teams to win there in three years - not Kansas, not Oklahoma, not Texas A&M.
|
Seed* |
Record* |
RPI |
Pomeroy |
Sagarin |
Streak |
Best Win** |
Worst Loss** |
Coach |
| Oklahoma |
1 |
14-2 |
2 |
18 |
5 |
L-1 |
Purdue |
Arkansas |
Jeff Capel |
| Kansas |
2 |
14-2 |
9 |
10 |
14 |
W-3 |
Washington |
UMass |
Bill Self |
| Missouri |
3 |
13-3 |
15 |
7 |
11 |
W-6 |
Kansas |
Nebraska |
Mike Anderson |
| Kansas State |
4 |
9-7 |
77 |
37 |
45 |
W-2 |
Missouri |
Oregon |
Frank Martin |
| Texas |
5 |
9-7 |
35 |
25 |
25 |
W-1 |
UCLA |
Arkansas |
Rick Barnes |
| Oklahoma State |
6 |
9-7 |
32 |
46 |
38 |
W-3 |
Baylor |
Texas A&M |
Travis Ford |
| Nebraska |
7 |
8-8 |
66 |
67 |
67 |
L-1 |
Missouri |
UMBC |
Doc Sadler |
| Texas A&M |
8 |
7-9 |
39 |
56 |
59 |
W-2 |
Texas |
Tulsa |
Mark Turgeon |
| Baylor |
9 |
7-9 |
57 |
52 |
48 |
L-1 |
Arizona State |
Texas Tech |
Scott Drew |
| Iowa State |
10 |
3-13 |
153 |
104 |
117 |
L-3 |
Houston |
SDSU |
Greg McDermott |
| Texas Tech |
11 |
2-14 |
131 |
111 |
112 |
L-4 |
New Mexico |
Lamar |
Pat Knight |
| Colorado |
12 |
1-15 |
225 |
165 |
196 |
L-7 |
Iowa State |
Montana State |
Jeff Bzdelik |
Note: As any of these numbers change, I will color-code them to indicate direction of change.
Team names that are colored indicate a change in seed.
(green = upward, red = downward)
*Predicted
**According to Pomeroy rating
Discussion
The convenient side effect of a 6-0 week is that I don't have to spend very much time discussing the newest projections, since there were absolutely no changes. I had already accounted for Texas beating Oklahoma, and the Cats still end up with the No. 4 seed despite projected losses to both Missouri and Oklahoma State.
I'll go on record right now, though, as saying that K-State will win one of those two games and finish 10-6 for the third consecutive season. Call it a gut feeling, if you want. I don't think we're quite good enough to finish 11-5, and frankly I expect to lose to a good Missouri team on Wednesday, but I also don't think we're as bad as 9-7, either. We'll need to win a conference tournament game against either Colorado or Texas (preferably Texas) to feel safe, I think.
There were no changes in the Pomeroy or Sagarin projections after Saturday.
Self-Evaluation
Big 12 Outlook was 6-0 this week. Not too much else to say, I guess.
As you can see below, I like Baylor and Oklahoma State to win road games against the bottom-feeders of the North (although I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see either team lose, since neither of them is inclined to play defense very often), while Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas should hold serve at home (although I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see any of them lose, except Texas, who should roll the Dead Faders in the Drum).
Cumulative pick record: 56-16 (.778)
Key
Obviously, R serves only as a tiebreaker, so it is only listed when there is a split between P and S.
Results are plugged into this wonderful tool to generate the predicted records and seed order.
Predicted Outcomes
| 01.10 |
| 3-2 (.600) |
61 Tech
73 Baylor |
67 I-State
75 Texas |
61 Oklahoma
53 K-State |
51 Missouri
56 Nebraska |
61 A&M
72 O-State |
|
| 01.12-01.14 |
| 4-1 (.800) |
63 Texas
78 Oklahoma |
71 K-State
87 Kansas |
53 Nebraska
65 I-State |
62 Colorado
107 Missouri |
73 Baylor
84 A&M |
|
| 01.17 |
| 6-0 (1.000) |
92 O-State
98 Baylor (OT) |
73 Kansas
56 Colorado |
46 I-State
77 Missouri |
51 K-State
73 Nebraska |
69 Oklahoma
63 A&M |
71 Texas
49 Tech |
|
| 01.19-01.21 |
| 3-2 (.600) |
53 A&M
73 Kansas |
55 Colorado
63 Tech |
83 Baylor
65 K-State |
97 Missouri
95 O-State |
61 Nebraska
72 Oklahoma |
|
| 01.24 |
| 5-1 (.833) |
77 K-State
75 Colorado (OT) |
82 Kansas
67 I-State |
86 Tech
97 Missouri |
76 O-State
74 Nebraska (OT) |
76 Baylor
95 Oklahoma |
58 A&M
67 Texas |
|
| 01.26-01.28 |
| 3-3 (.500) |
89 Oklahoma
81 O-State |
78 Texas
72 Baylor |
49 I-State
55 Colorado |
72 Missouri
88 K-State |
68 Kansas
62 Nebraska |
70 Tech
79 A&M |
|
| 01.31 |
| 4-2 (.667) |
78 Oklahoma
68 I-State |
85 K-State
81 Texas (OT) |
61 Colorado
66 Kansas |
72 Baylor
89 Missouri |
82 Nebraska
69 Tech |
64 O-State
76 A&M |
|
| 02.02-02.04 |
| 4-2 (.667) |
75 Kansas
65 Baylor |
50 I-State
65 K-State |
55 Nebraska
53 Colorado |
69 Missouri
65 Texas |
80 Tech
81 O-State |
71 A&M
77 Oklahoma |
|
| 02.07 |
| 4-2 (.667) |
72 Colorado
77 Oklahoma |
82 Missouri
68 I-State |
65 K-State
60 A&M |
67 O-State
78 Kansas |
55 Texas
58 Nebraska |
76 Baylor
83 Tech |
|
| 02.09-02.11 |
| 5-0 (1.000) |
60 Kansas
62 Missouri |
74 O-State
99 Texas |
78 Oklahoma
63 Baylor |
42 Colorado
70 I-State |
73 Tech
85 K-State |
|
| 02.14 |
| 6-0 (1.000) |
68 A&M
72 Baylor |
85 Texas
76 Colorado (OT) |
67 I-State
86 O-State |
85 Kansas
74 K-State |
47 Nebraska
70 Missouri |
74 Tech
95 Oklahoma |
|
| 02.16-02.18 |
| 3-1 (.750) |
66 Texas
81 A&M |
55 I-State
72 Kansas |
41 Colorado
46 Nebraska |
92 O-State
82 Tech |
|
| 02.21 |
| 6-0 (1.000) |
66 Missouri
53 Colorado |
50 K-State
46 I-State |
53 Nebraska
70 Kansas |
74 Baylor
84 O-State |
79 A&M
73 Tech |
68 Oklahoma
73 Texas |
|
| 02.23-02.25 |
|
Kansas
@ Oklahoma (PS) |
Baylor (PS)
@ I-State |
A&M
@ Nebraska (PS) |
O-State (PS)
@ Colorado |
K-State
@ Missouri (PS) |
Tech
@ Texas (PS) |
|
| 02.28-03.01 |
|
Colorado
@ Baylor (PS) |
I-State
@ A&M (PS) |
Nebraska
@ K-State (PS) |
Texas
@ O-State (PS) |
Oklahoma (PS)
@ Tech |
Missouri
@ Kansas (PS) |
|
| 03.02-03.04 |
|
Baylor
@ Texas (PS) |
K-State
@ O-State (PS) |
A&M (PS)
@ Colorado |
Kansas (PS)
@ Tech |
Oklahoma
@ Missouri (PS) |
I-State
@ Nebraska (PS) |
|
| 03.07 |
|
Tech
@ I-State (PS) |
Colorado
@ K-State (PS) |
Texas
@ Kansas (PS) |
Missouri (PS)
@ A&M |
Nebraska
@ Baylor (PS) |
O-State
@ Oklahoma (PS) |
|
Damn we need Stillwater.
That team is hanging in there. With Okie State’s RPI and the fact that they may finish above .500 in conference, the conference will need 6 teams in if we want to be considered….
mystman995 - February 23, 2009
You know the only thing that sucks about Frank Martin being a good coach
Is that Jim Wefald will get looked back on for making a “wise” move when he was just trying to stave off a firesale after Huggins left.
You guys lucked out (though keeping dalonte hill helps a lot too obviously) with Frank Martin. Plus, he has a debt of gratitude to K-state for giving him a shot, which hopefully will keep him around and keep the Big XII North on its current upswing (even iowa state and colorado both have young coaches that can still turn out for the better).
2.1 seconds left - February 23, 2009
As long as Jim's getting the credit and not Jon, I'm OK with it.
Also, I’ll be shocked if McDermott isn’t canned after this season. And Bzdelik has done zero to turn CU into a contender so far.
KSU_Philly - February 23, 2009
I was watching a CU game earlier this year...
…and they asked Bzdelik what his ideal CU basketball player would be. He said that it would be someone that could shoot and had a high basketball IQ.
I thought that was interesting because, honestly, how many of those guys are athletic enough to play BCS basketball? Isn’t he kind of setting himself up for failure?
Also, is it just me, or does ISU’s roster look like a Missouri Valley team? This isn’t a put down; it just seems like it’s a bunch of tall, skinny guys that can shoot. They obviously have trouble matching up with more athletic teams because they simply can’t keep up with them, and the only player that can, Brackins, dominates all of the action.
Anyway, I just thought that was an observation worth sharing. Those teams don’t seem to be getting better, IMO, because the coaches are recruiting the same guys they would have coached at Air Force or Northern Iowa.
Panjandrum - February 23, 2009
I think it's a fair point...
…because you can throw Turgeon in there, as well. He doesn’t have a roster full of guys that look like MVC players, but he sure as hell doesn’t know how to use his guys. Given what he has to work with, he’s undoubtedly the biggest underachiever of the group.
TB - February 23, 2009
+1
Hadn’t even thought of Turgeon since his team was still on the tourney bubble before this week.
But when you consider where that team was when Gillespie left, Turgeon hasn’t lived up to the billing.
KSU_Philly - February 23, 2009
http://blogs.kansas.com/lutz/2009/02/23/big-night-in-norman/
Amen re: A&M and OSU over the Cats at this point?
KSU_Philly - February 23, 2009
If we win in Stillwater
there should be no discussion on either team being selected before us.
Man I hate “bracketology”
mystman995 - February 23, 2009
Not sure what Palm's thinking...
…anybody who considers either A&M or OSU “in” at this point is not paying attention. Credit where it’s due, they both have good RPIs, but they’re both treading water — at best — in conference play and have been fairly unimpressive in a South division that doesn’t live up to the standard set by previous years. If we beat OSU in Stillwater, they will be almost universally considered “out.”
On another note, that article got me thinking about something that has been on my mind since Saturday when UT knocked off OU. We could be looking at a sea change right now in everything we had assumed about this conference for the past six weeks. Oklahoma could very well go from a possible 16-0 conference season to just hanging on to dear life for the No. 2 seed in Oklahoma City. Without Griffin, KU has a very, very good chance to win in Norman tonight. The beaks are playing well right now and the Lloyd Noble Center is not an overly intimidating road venue. If KU knocks off the Sooners, suddenly the beaks will have an inside path to the conference title, with Missouri squarely in the mix as well.
TB - February 23, 2009
It's just not right for KU to have so many Big 12 championships in a row...
…then again, OU being the best in football and basketball isn’t good either.
MadCat - February 23, 2009
Mark my word.
The Jayhawk’s will not win the Big 12 next year.
mystman995 - February 23, 2009
Still standing by that?
After last night, with them having Mizzou and UT at home, I would be very surprised to see them lose another game. Pains me to say it, but it fell into their laps with Griffin being out last night.
gw1754 - February 24, 2009
Absolutely
Because I said that they won’t win it NEXT YEAR.
mystman995 - February 24, 2009
Oh, you tricky devil
TB - February 24, 2009
Fair enough...
…got nothing.
gw1754 - February 24, 2009
Portland anyone?
Cats now projected as a No. 12 seed.
http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm
KSU_Philly - February 24, 2009
I can' believe...
…how much divergence there is on our prospects for the Tournament. Some think we’re in easily. Some think we’re not even close. It makes my head spin.
TB - February 24, 2009
Teams to root for tonight:
Nebraska at home against Texas A&M
Ohio State at home against Penn State
BYU on the road against San Diego State
Georgetown losing last night was a nice boost for us, too.
To a lesser degree, so was KU winning since we’ve playing the Hawks twice and the Sooners only once.
KSU_Philly - February 24, 2009
I shall don the big, red 'N' of...
shamesolidarity.MadCat - February 24, 2009
Lines for games above:
Nebraska -3.5 at home against Texas A&M
Ohio State -6 at home against Penn State
BYU +1 on the road against San Diego State (the home team normally automatically gives three points, so this line means Vegas thinks BYU will win by two)
Looks like Vegas is on our side tonight, too, boys.
KSU_Philly - February 24, 2009
So we're in 20 of 55 brackets?
And of those 20, our average is 12?
It is interesting to me since our team is the “in” team with the fewest bracket appearances…and there’s even an “out” team with more bracket appearances (Belmont, with avg. seed of 15).
MadCat - February 24, 2009
Whereas Belmont is getting picks as an automatic bid in many brackets
K-State is getting an at-large nod.
KSU_Philly - February 24, 2009
Confused about the Portland reference?
Forgot to explain that part. From the matrix, the guy who runs this site seeds the bracket and puts one out on his own. Here’s a link http://bracketproject.50webs.com/ .
In this scenario, we’d play the No. 5 seed, Illinois (winnable matchup with our athleticism). No. 4 Arizona State and No. 13 Davidson would be the others in our pod.
KSU_Philly - February 24, 2009
Of the 5 seeds I saw
That would be the one to play. 33 points? Really? I’d take a Big Ten team any day of the week.
I want no part of Xavier or Gonzaga, however. Nor Washington, really.
BracketCat - February 24, 2009
Agreed.
And I’d take ASU as a second-round matchup any day, too. Or, if Davidson somehow snuck past the Devils, I think Dom or Merriweather – a guy focused on defense more than offense – is just the type of guy to shut down Curry…
KSU_Philly - February 24, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bring On The Cats to post a comment.