Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="bballnut90, post: 2578575, member: 2117"] Chiming in late but a few thoughts/rants: 1. Anyone not named UCONN who has the mentality of "championship or bust" must be incredibly disappointed in their program's performance the past 15 years. For everyone else, Final Fours ABSOLUTELY are celebrated. If Baylor finishes the year 36-2 and loses in the semifinals, I bet every single Baylor player and coach will feel a huge amount of pride for their season's outcome. Just like how anyone who makes the Final Four should feel a lot of pride. Even UCONN fans last year and in 2012 and 2011 were by and large very proud of their team and its accomplishments despite not bringing home a natty. 2. This argument has been hashed out several times on the board regarding would you rather have Kim's resume of 2 titles but several early exits with Final Four/Championship caliber teams or Tara/Muffett's resume of no titles in the last 15 years but a slew of Final Four and title game appearances. All are great coaches and have had their successes and shortcomings well documented. Most Baylor fans understandably think Kim's resume is stronger, while myself and many others think Tara/Muffett have better resumes. It's a difference of opinion, but for someone to say one of those 3 shouldn't be in the "same breath" as the other two is laughable and reeks of extreme bias. 3. I don't follow the Massey/Sagarin ratings or any of that, I've always felt top 25 ranking and eye test is usually a best "feel" for where a team stands at the end of the regular season. Baylor will likely finish the regular season ranked in the top 4 and have a resume including wins over Stanford and 2 (or 3) wins against Texas. From the games I've seen, Baylor also passes the top 4 eye test. No bad losses, just the UCLA one without Cox or Mulkey. Is that enough for a #1 seed? I think it is. Especially when you consider Louisville or Notre Dame will have 3+ losses entering the tournament and that Baylor has looked dominant in all of their big wins this year. If the top 5 teams win out, I think top seeds should go to UCONN, Mississippi State, ND/Louisville winner, and Baylor. Baylor gets the loser of ND/Louisville as their 2 seed. 4. The Big 12 is not good this year outside of Texas and Baylor. Oklahoma State has had some good showings (competitive games against Texas, Mississippi State and Tennessee), but after that you have: -Oklahoma who might not make the tournament (13-12 record) -West Virginia who had 1 good out of conference win (@ Texas A&M) but is 7-7 in conference play and hasn't been competitive besides one game against Baylor -TCU who has 1 win against Texas and a bunch of cream puff games besides playing Oklahoma, Ok St, and West Virginia. Everyone else in the conference is 5-9 or worse. The SEC/ACC/Pac all have 4-5 good teams in their conference while the Big 12 has just 2....maybe 3 if you stretch it. The Big Ten is quite bad this year. My point with this is, I don't really care if a team can do well against a conference schedule that has several teams in the 30-50 range, I want to see how they do against the big dogs, aka top 10-15 teams. In those games Baylor has done quite well. Use that as an argument rather than building up a weak Big 12 based off a random rating system. 5. Which brings me to my next argument/pet peeve. If your SOS isn't good, just own it. I don't think many UCONN fans here have really defended the AAC or argued the conference "isn't that bad." It's consistently a bad conference outside of maybe South Florida, and UCONN fans own it. Baylor's schedule this year is weak. Mississippi State's OOC schedule is also weak. Much of Tennessee's OOC schedule was weak this year. Having a weak schedule doesn't make your program worse, but it makes you look silly as a poster if you're defending it. Rant over. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach