Expectations

O

outlookdude

250+ Posts
A comment in another thread said...

"I actually want to see what they do in the tournament before I make any proclamations about this season. If the Big 12 is really that competitive I expect to see them perform well in the NCAA's."

I agree that the NCAA tournament is a good measure of the conference strength. What I am not clear about is what would be reasonable expectations. What would validate the conference reputation? It doesn’t seem reasonable to expect half of the sweet 16 to be big 12 schools. Would 4 or 5 to the sweet 16 and at least one to the elite 8 be reasonable? Is that enough?

I’m not sure I have a fixed opinion about this yet. I am curious what others think. My perception is that the Big 12 is incredibility tough from top to bottom, with a lot of teams that could be ranked 10 to 25. I’m not sure there is really any single elite team. Does there need to be one? Can we even set expectations now, or do we need to wait until the brackets are announced?
 
Realistically, imo, Nebraska and A&M have the best shots at making at least the Elite Eight and possibly, the Final Four.

Baylor, if Melissa Jones and Jordan Madden are able to give them productive minutes as they return from injuries, will be a tough out. If Jones and Madden can’t provide outside shooting, the Lady Bears will be hard pressed to win two games.

Overall, I would expect all six or seven teams to win the first game and about half to move on to the sweet sixteen.

Texas, as you can imagine, is the team that I find the hardest to project. Being the home team, I expect them to reach the Sweet Sixteen. If a team like West Virginia, St. Johns, Kentucky gets invited to , it’s a tossup if the Horns will be able to advance past round two. A lot depends on whether the Horns are making their shots. If the offense is running smoothly, they can play with anyone. Otherwise, ouch.

So, to condense, my expectations for the Big 12, at least 2 in the Elite Eight, 3-4 in the Sweet Sixteen.

Of course, you got to take that with a sizable amount of salt.
biggrin.gif
I have found that my projections are not what you would want to bet the house on.
biggrin.gif
 
OK, I guess no one else wants to play. I’ll explain the reasoning that I have come to before the brackets are announced…….

I put the over/under on Big 12 tournament wins at 12. I figure with a total of 12 wins there could be argument either way as to upholding the conference reputation. 13 wins or more and it is clear the conference has performed as billed. Less than 12 would be a disappointment. (I am assuming no significant injuries, and hoping that is the case.)

I figure Texas for two wins because they are at home. I am counting on being a 4 or a 5. Should we slide to a 6 and have to face a 3 in the second round it could be tough to get that second win. Not impossible, but certainly a big challenge.

Iowa State should be good for two as they also play at home, and are likely a 4 seed. That would make it round 3 before they saw a higher seeded team.

OU I would expect to be a 3 seed and they also play 2 rounds at home. By round 3 they would play a 2 seed away from home, so I still can’t say that they have to win another one – but they could.

I have A&M also as a 3 seed. Same expectation for them, but they have to do it all away from home.

Nebraska will be either a 1 or 2 seed. They have to win at least two games in order to get any respect, and it should be 3.

Baylor and OKS will play away from home and be seeded no higher than 5th. I count on at least 1 game from each.

So NU3, ATM/OU/TX/IWS 2 each, Baylor/OKS 1 each gets us to 13 that should clearly establish playing to expectations. Take away one to get to the debatable over/under. I figure using total conference wins is appropriate given the nature of the tournament. Usually some teams play better than expected, some worse. But, it should even out overall. Of course, seeding will probably end up significantly different than what I have guessed and completely change the nature of the projection.
 
Sorry, but when our team has 26 turnovers in a game, the expectations are non-existant. We are not going to beat anybody committing 26 turnovers a game. Frankly, I am very disappointed with with team and staff. I expected more.
 
It has not been just against A$M. The game before, against Missouri, I think it was 21 turnovers. That is just plain bad basketball, anyway you spin it.
 
So, in the end the Big 12 nails my over/under at 12 wins. I think that with that record placing two teams in the final four is enough to qualify this as a successful tournament for the conference. While Texas early exit was a disappointment, I think it was proven that on any given night there were 6-7 teams in the Big 12 who had the potential to beat anyone in the country, with one obvious exception in UConn. Yes, Texas lost in the first round. But, they were also 3-2 vs the final four teams.

I will grant that Stanford would have probably won the Big 12 this year. But, they would have had to work for it. I think we saw enough to know that the level of competition in the Big 12 is very, very high.
 
there's some epic failed predictions on this thread. Aggy and Nebs to the Elite 8 or Final Four, Baylor not higher than a 5 seed and not making it past the 2nd round; Texas winning a game, much less two. well done folks.
 
Yes, there are some failed predictions. Some of them are mine. Not the first time I have been wrong or the last. I’ve also seen some other folks men’s brackets this year. Bit of a mess on that side too.

However, some have apparently misunderstood my original question. This was not intended to be about expectations for Texas. We all argued about that in plenty of other threads. It was a question about what type overall performance in the NCAA tournament would justify for the Big 12 the claim to be the strongest WBB conference. I appreciate the one person who was willing to go on record before the tournament.

… My reasoning was basically based on where I thought teams should be seeded, the assumption that teams were properly seeded, how many games there would be before running into a comparably or higher seeded team, and the little I knew about who would play where. Since it was before seedings were announced there really were no specific predictions for any teams. Mostly just statistical predictions based on seeding and home court. I felt that while the tournament can be, and usually is, unpredictable there were enough games that overall wins should even out based on my assumptions.

In the end, teams were seeded significantly different than I expected, there were disappointments, and surprises. But, the formula I used still produced a surprisingly accurate number of wins. That could be, and probably is, blind luck. It still leaves me with the question I was asking at the beginning. Has this tournament performance justified the claim as the strongest conference? If not, what would it have taken? Is it possible to justify that claim in the NCAA tournament? If not, how could it be justified? Going back to the thread that prompted me to ask the question – does your current, post tournament, perception of the conference at all change your perception of the UT program in 09-10?

Still, I don’t think Baylor being a four rather than a five is epic failure. I missed the same thing with OKS. And, hats off to Baylor for a great tournament but I still think they were seeded too high based on their regular season. I did think it was reasonable to expect a win from Texas in the first round on their home court. I see that as a huge disappointment more than any epic failure on my part for making an outrageous prediction. ATM and NU missed the Elite 8 by one game. That doesn’t seen epic to me either. Games are hard enough to predict when you have a bracket. Not many people have a lot of success before the bracket is announced.

Oh – who else would have loved to see ATM against Kentucky?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top