Looking Ahead To The Big 12 Tourney

by Peter Bean on Feb 15, 2007 1:55 PM CST in Texas Longhorns Basketball

It's amazing what you can do with your computer these days. . . Mix in MS Paint with some information from the internet and basic mathematics and you can create the Big 12 Tournament bracket.

The bracket to the right reflects how the Big 12 Tournament field would be seeded were the season over today. Looking at the field, Texas fans have to be reasonably pleased with the #3 seed, if for no other reason than because the game is the last of the evening, when everyone could watch without work conflicts arising.

Looking at the seeds, one wonders just how long Kansas State can hang on to that fourth slot in the standings. Their win over Texas was pretty flukey, and they've since been annihilated by Kansas and lost to a below average Nebraska team. As iffey as the Wildcats have been, they do enjoy the benefit of playing in the Big 12 North, where they still have what should be a couple of easy wins in front of them: Iowa State in Manhattan and Colorado in Boulder. Winning those two would get them to nine conference wins, and leave them needing an upset versus Kansas, at Oklahoma State, or versus Oklahoma to get to ten wins.

For Texas, unless they somehow play themselves into the #1 seed - which seems unrealistic - they're going to have to earn their way to the conference tournament finals. As always, though, the key for Texas is taking care of business on their end, rather than consuming extra time worrying about what's going on around them. As mentioned in this morning's Texas Basketball Report, the goal really needs to be: get to eleven wins. If the 'Horns meet that goal, they'll be in a solid position entering postseason tournament play. . . where, as we all know, anything can happen.

--PB--

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My thought-

It would be nice if Tech stayed in 7th and A&M fell to 2nd so they would have to play again. It should be a great tournament with both the Oklahoma teams having a lot to play for and their fans bringing the atmosphere.

by Chalmersfan on Feb 15, 2007 3:28 PM CST reply actions

OU

I'm feeling OU is in the more perilous position. I'm thinking they have won their last regular season game. With games against A&M, @Missouri, UT, Kansas and @KansasSt, they can't feel confident about their position in the tournament.

As for our chances of winning the Big-12 tournament, I'm not sure its worth winning. Way too many conference tournament champions are exiting the NCAA Tournament quite early. Keeping our legs fresh should be the real goal.

--- We have pansies scheduling our patsies. ---

by HornChamps on Feb 15, 2007 3:41 PM CST reply actions

Somebody should

do the research to see how many national champions in the last, say 5-10 years, have also won their own conference tournament. (you can't see, but i'm holding my finger to my nose.) i'm guessing it's something below 50%.

by littlevisigoth on Feb 15, 2007 5:23 PM CST up reply actions

results

Florida won the tournament
UNC did not win
UConn won the tournament
Syracuse did not win
Maryland did not win
Duke won the tournament
Michigan St. won the tournament
UConn won the tournament
Kentucky won the tournament
Arizona (no tourney this year)
Kentucky did not win
UCLA (no tourney this year)
Arkansas did not win
UNC did not win
Duke won the tournament
Duke did not win

that's 6 times the winner of the NCAAs won its conference tournament and 7 times the winnerof the NCAAs has not won its conference tournament (and 2 times there wasn't one).

there are probably better ways to determine correlation, but this is a basic look at it.

by billyzane on Feb 15, 2007 6:36 PM CST up reply actions

I think that shows enough

Winning or losing the Big 12 tourney will not hurt us. I don't think any team should ever try to tank a game just to get some rest. Better to be on a win streak going into the madness than with a loss.

by Wells on Feb 16, 2007 10:01 AM CST up reply actions

Tell that to Kansas....

who won last year's tourney and then promptly bowed out in the 1st Round to big, bad Bradley.

--- We have pansies scheduling our patsies. ---

by HornChamps on Feb 16, 2007 11:20 AM CST up reply actions

Great you point out one example

and there are six above that won the whole thing.
Way to go.

by Wells on Feb 16, 2007 11:21 AM CST up reply actions

actually

there is an article on ESPN right now (insider) that says that coming into the tournament on a 1-game losing streak is a better indicator of a team that will overachieve relative to their seed opposed to a team that comes in on a winning streak.

it's debatable why that is (extra rest or perhaps even that teams that win the conference tournament are overrated by the committee relative to teams that don't), but it's interesting nonetheless.

by billyzane on Feb 16, 2007 11:52 AM CST up reply actions

The Article

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=2756254

It is a little more complicated than how you stated it above, and this is a statical analysis of all teams entering the tournament, not ones that win their conference Tournament and those that don't.

With that understood, I would think that the one game losing streak stat can be explained by teams that are underrated because the committee has seen the team lose just before they decide where to seed them.

From reading the article, it seems that success is best defined for teams that win by a lot with an experienced coach. I could have told you that without the numbers.

by Wells on Feb 16, 2007 12:11 PM CST up reply actions

more to it than that

sorry i didn't link to the article earlier, but i was having trouble accessing ESPN for some reason. there's a second article by the same author here that gives the most important combination of factors in overachieving tournament teams.

According to the numbers, 77% of teams who have a preseason all-american, 4 or more straight tourney appearances, and a 1-game losing streak entering the tournament (i.e. didn't win their conference tournament) will overachieve relative to their seeds. As the article explains, the designation of "preseason all-american" is just an attempt to consider "star power" identified prior to the tournament and thus according to the author, Texas (with KD) should be included in that group.

Interestingly, one of the factors that appears in combination with other factors the most to produce overachieving tournament teams is "frontcourt accounts for more than 60% of the scoring." we tend to think of the NCAA tournament as a guard's game, but is it, really? Last year, both Florida and LSU were centered around their front line. George Mason survived because it had a front line that could hang with the big boys. Only UCLA was really guard-oriented.

by billyzane on Feb 16, 2007 3:19 PM CST up reply actions

yes, but...

Yes, Wells, but how many of those six had the depth problems that we do? We absolutely abuse Durant, Abrams, and Augustin, giving each guy 36+ minutes a night. Damion James and Connor Atchley each give over 20 minutes, while Dex is now good for 4-8 minutes depending on the pace of play. Matt Hill may be back in time for the tournaments, but the rumor now is stress fracture.

Do you really want a team that is essentially six-deep to play five games in a nine- or ten-day stretch? That is what you're aksing if you want the team to win - or even play for - the conference tournament title and then play in the round of 32 the following weekend.

by LonghornRoadTrip on Feb 16, 2007 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

I agree that it would be stressfull on our team

But I don't know if that is a reason to dog it in the Big 12 tournament. There is also a psychological lift to winning multiple games in a row. Although it cant be too much, as the article that BZ linked to points out that winning streak of more than nine games hurts a team.

by Wells on Feb 16, 2007 3:55 PM CST up reply actions

Oh get real

You're talking about 6 champions over a 13-year time frame. My single example was last year's Big-12 tournament champion. You want more?

How about the Big-Ten tournament champion, Iowa? They lost their first game in last year's NCAA tournament to big, bad Northwestern State!

How about the Big East tournament champion, Syracuse? They lost their first game in last year's NCAA tournament to big, bad Texas A&M!

How about the WAC tournament champion, Nevada? They lost their first game in last year's NCAA tournament to big, bad Montana!

Recent evidence is quite clear. The additional strain of playing through the entire conference tournament is quite likely to have a negative impact in the NCAA tournament.

--- We have pansies scheduling our patsies. ---

by HornChamps on Feb 16, 2007 2:53 PM CST up reply actions

Recent evidence is quite clear.

Florida won the tournament last year.
Statements like yours above are pompous and ridiculous.
How is six champions over the last 13 years discounted, and your limited examples make it quite clear?

by Wells on Feb 16, 2007 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

Probably because...

there have been 400+ conference champions over that 13-year timeframe. Your 6 examples would be a big ol' 1.5% of the sample. Pales by comparison, doesn't it?

Ridiculous? Your comments on this subject would best be described by the word ridiculous.

--- We have pansies scheduling our patsies. ---

by HornChamps on Feb 16, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions

No jackass

my 6 is almost half of the champions in the last 13 years. 2 others did not have conference championships during that time. Meaning that more champions in the last 13 years have won their conference championship than have lost it.

by Wells on Feb 16, 2007 4:52 PM CST up reply actions

Wells is right

If there have been, say, 400 conference champions over the last 13 years, then by definition, 387 must be non-national champs, as there can be only one national champion each year. Citing those 387 as proof that it's better not to win your conference championship is not valid.

If you wanted to prove your point, HornChamps, you'd need to show that teams who win their conference championship underperform relative to the expectation of their seed. Saying "95% didn't win the national title" is just stating what's necessarily true.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Feb 16, 2007 5:02 PM CST up reply actions

maybe a more insightful

stat would be comparing average round of exit for teams winning their conference tournament, losing in the final, or losing in the semifinal.

it's all moot, though. winning the big 12 this year would be a fantastic accomplishment, and it's moronic to hope for anything less. even being in the final would mean we'd have to beat A&M or Kansas in the semis. i'd take that. i'd love another run to the 3rd, 4th, or (dare i even say it) final four round of the tourney, but i'd certainly enjoy hanging my hat on the big 12 championship.

by littlevisigoth on Feb 16, 2007 1:45 PM CST up reply actions