So, what exactly happened? In short, we kept hearing that the Big 10 and Pac-10 wanted league title games in football and needed two more schools each to get there. Candidates started to emerge, most it seems from the Big 12, the newest major league and also the one with schools who were openly unhappy about league governance. What followed we all know very will, but what’s interesting are the whys most commonly given by the punditry. Here are a few:

1. It is primarily about TV sets.
2. Football is the primary driver, because that is where the money is to be made.
3. Four 16 team “mega-conferences make sense because this would maximize revenue potential.
4. Basketball really doesn’t matter which is why a school like Kansas could be ostracized from the “big time” in spite of its rich history.
5. TV networks such as that run by the Big 10 where the wave of the future, except for those schools who could cut their own TV deal such as Texas and Notre Dame.

There was surprisingly little critical thought applied to any of these consensus viewpoints. However, as a pretty avid college sports fan, I realized that I couldn’t name one person who was on Florida’s football team last year with the exception of Tebow. I never on a Saturday afternoon say to my wife that my day will be ruined if I don’t catch an Alabama, Florida, USC, Michigan or tOSU football game. I’ll watch Big 12 football and I’ll watch interesting games on TV, but my life certainly doesn’t revolve around watching SEC, Pac-10 or Big 10 football. I’m fairly well convinced that people in Birmingham, or Atlanta might not be inclined to watch the Missouri vs. Kansas game either unless they are both in the top 5 as miraculously happened in 2007. Additionally, I wonder if the number of TVs in LA is the way to measure market value when you consider all the entertainment options athletic and otherwise available to the typical Angelean. I read a great deal of speculation about Rutgers to the Big 10 because they would open up the New Jersey and New York media market, but if the Yankees are playing a mid-October play-off game on a Saturday afternoon how many sets are going to be tuned to say Rutgers vs. Northwestern? I’m also wondering how may Michiganders or Ohioans would design the Saturday around the Rutgers vs. Northwestern game? So, I’m not convinced that it is as simple as multiplying the number of TV sets by the number of households. The Big 10 appears to agree with me in part because the first team they took in their now “paused” expansion was a school from the state with the smallest population. This is perhaps because they thought college sports fans would tune into Nebraska vs. Ohio State as well they may if it were to see NU teams of the quality they fielded in the late 1990’s go against recent OSU teams. On the other hand what if those NU’s teams are like their 2007 squad?

Football as we’ve been told is the driver in this process to remake our conference alignment. It is where the money is conference title games are a massive financial boon. This is of course dismaying to a Kansas fan who is much more likely to tune his or her set to a KU hoops game than anything else and will happily drive an 80 mile round trip to watch his Jayhawks play an early season exhibition against say Emporia State. So, I suppose I care about hoops more than the average SEC fan cares about basketball. I agree with that whole heartedly. But judging from the amount of money that gets paid for the NCAA hoops tourney and for major intersectional or rivalry games in season I think it is safe to say that a few other people are watching college basketball too. The NCAA tourney is a major cultural event in this country and arguablly the premier college sports event. The BCS game is big, it lacks the theatre or the build-up of the final four. Now football post-season has a chance to be huge if and when they get a playoff going. The BCS game has taken away from interest in the bowl games as has in my humble opinion the move of some of the major bowls away from New Year’s day.

So why doesn’t basketball matter? It doesn’t matter as much because the revenue from the NCAA tournament goes in the main to pay for the operation of the governing organization of collegiate athletics the NCAA. Some of the remainder of the tournament money goes to the smaller conferences, so the power conferences can’t really increase their take. Football has untapped potential to raise money it is the untapped oil field. Now interestingly in the most recent year for which I could find data Kansas ranked third in television distribution in the Big 12, and they have a tremendous brand in Kansas basketball but that notwithstanding they were an alignment afterthought. Of course, had someone bothered to think slightly deeper than the superficial level that characterized most of the alignment discussion they’d have realized that hoops was covering overhead. If football money were used to pay a share of this overhead of course the calculus would change regarding the value of basketball. The NCAA tourney brings in TV revenue of $771 million per year on its $10.8 billion dollar contract. According to Forbes some 140,000,000 people tune in each spring. My Jayhawks were in a recent Forbes financial analysis worth $21.7 million/year to the university athletic corporation and turned a tidy profit of $12.9 million.

So, what exactly is going on here? Well, in the final analysis this was strictly an exercise in outright and complete stupidity. Missouri had their nose out of joint due to what they consider unfair bowl game assignments and unequal revenue distributions, and politicians got involved (which guarantees a walk on the moronic side), this contributed to a lot of wild-eyed speculation about a seismic shift in conference alignment. In fairness it wasn’t just Missouri, obviously Nebraska, Colorado and ultimately the entire Big 12 south entered the discussion along with Rutgers, Syracuse, Utah, Virgina Tech and others.

This got conference athletic leadership and athletic directors agitated who went initially into a protective mode, which turned aggressive in the end game. Ridiculous speculation about financial models ensued with in many cases little of substance to support the supposition. When serious financial people started running the numbers what they found was that the vast majority of the operating assumptions were wrong. The advantage of bigger leagues was overblown, the problems with travel were ignored, and at the end of the day the conventional wisdom that league football title games were a huge boon to leagues was even called into question. Now we are told that the Big 12 is better off minus two and all that emphasis on the benefits of divisional play and the league title football game was just a load of hooey we’ve been fed for the last 14 years. We can make as much money two teams smaller and without “the game”, as if anyone in this league or any other major conference really needs more money!

Then we had all the pundits and speculators in chief running around telling us how insignificant basketball is in spite of the tourney’s huge payout. Again, when smart financial people starting running the numbers the myth of hoops insignificance started to dissolve. So really what we had going on here was the kind of mass hysteria that led to the tulip bubble in 17th century Holland and every irrational financial bubble since including our recent housing bubble. Auction mentality ensued, people feared being left out of the “opportunity”. So what ultimately played out is that two leagues quite possibly overpaid for questionable assets, then one league really jumped into the fray and nearly doubled or tripled down on its initial questionable bet.

Sanity has never really returned and speculation continued including the recent Arkansas to the Big 12 reports. The only thing that kept things from getting even worse was that few people belatedly realized how wrong all of the thinking was and order was restored, sort of. I think the only way to stop this once and for all is for university presidents to band together and call a halt to the college sports arms race. I would start by capping athletic corporation budgets at $80mm and requiring that any top line income above that number go into a general fund for academic support. Remember that the athletic teams play to represent universities, and universities exist to educate. Priorities have gotten out of whack here. Inmates are running the asylum. These are people who didn’t mind the idea of say a softball team traveling from Lubbock to Eugene, or from Pullman to College Station to play a game. The kids don’t matter, the parents don’t matter, the alums and fans don’t matter just show these guys the money.

I do not need bigger and bigger video boards, fancier arenas and NFL/NBA quality amenities to enjoy collegiate athletics. The fact that there are teams with KANSAS on their jerseys has always been enough for me, and in a reasonable world that would be enough for Texas and The Ohio State University fans as well. People have forgotten why there are collegiate athletics, which is to allow for amateur competition among students who enjoy and are good at sports. I don’t believe it is so that athletic directors can make $3mm a year or so Mack Brown can make more than some corporate CEOs. My proposed cap of $80mm is more than triple what KU’s budget was when the Big 12 started so I am not proposing the athletic departments operate like monasteries. I’m just proposing that it is out of hand and that enough in the minds of far to many athletic administrators is way too much.

What we just witnessed was the most embarrassing and disgusting exercise in the history of college athletics. Big time college sports has lost its collective soul, because as it turns out merely being big time competitively is not enough to satisfy those trusted with running our school’s sports wings. They want more money to control, more funds to raise and more money in their and their colleagues pockets out of the pool. The fans and alums of the schools get nothing out of this, nothing at all. Except of course that those willing to really pony up get the odd ride on the athletic department jet to away games or get to belly up to the university clubhouse bars with other like minded people who are prone to donate to the wrong charity or just like the smell of jock straps.

Oh, and one last thing about Texas who always seemed to be at the center of this foul episode. I don’t resent UT because they have (and get) more money than KU, I resent UT because they represent everything that is wrong with college athletics. They aren’t the cure to what was wrong with the Big 12, they are the disease. They, and others schools for which no amount of income is enough, are a metastatic cancer eating at the innards of college athletics. They are greed, selfishness and entitlement personified, their $130,000,000 annual athletic budget isn’t enough they want more.

What’s more these greedy supposed non-profit organizations are completely lacking in the capacity to feel shame, which is their worst fault of all. They should be ashamed. We should be ashamed. All of college sports should be ashamed. College sports is not just about what happens on the field, it is now about who has the biggest jumbotron, most spectacular locker rooms, and the most lavish suites. It is about booming sound systems, fireworks, smoke from dry-ice, wider concourses, and pro sports style atmospherics. There is only aspect of the athletic arms race driven facilities improvements I fully appreciate and that’s the expanded bathrooms in Allen Field House, which make halftime a lot less challenging. The rest of it they can keep, just give me our Jayhawks and our good old-fashioned family atmosphere.

We should not be celebrating our survival in the big time, and we most certainly shouldn’t be pleased about the survival of the college athletics financial arms race. We should be mourning the end of nearly all that was good about college athletics. The good has been wasting away for years, but as of this month it is almost gone. There is little real good left.

If you really want to see what collegiate athletics is about watch all the youngsters waiting patiently in Allen Field House after a game to get to meet or get an autograph from a Kansas basketball player. That costs nothing, but at the same time is priceless. I will root for my Jayhawks, but my heart will be heavy until courageous people take intercollegiate athletics back from those who have taken away so much of its soul. Let’s take our sports back from these megalomaniacs before there is nothing recognizable left.

The computers love Duke, but is that because they’re a legitimately great team, or is it because they leave their starters in longer than they need to and run up the score against their opponents at home? Would a great team lose multiple games by double digits to ok teams? That’s what we’re trying to figure out here.

REALly great teams do more than beat up on patsies. REALly great teams win on the road. So let’s take a look at how teams did in tough games versus how they might be expected to do. The results are revealing.

So how we judged. An elite team should…

1) win all home games
2) win all non-top 25 neutral court games
3) win all non-top 50 road games
4) split top 25 neutral court games
5) split #26-50 road games
6) lose all top 25 road games

By applying those rules to each team in the top 25, we came up with an expected number of wins and losses. If a team would have been expected to have won 6 games and lost 4, but went 4-6, it’s an indication that they are not as good as a team which did the opposite. As Doug indicates:

Under that system, KU would have been expected to go 3-6 against the top 25 and 24.5-6.5 overall but was actually 8-1 for a +5 ’score’ against the top 25 and +4.5 for the season.

Syracuse would have been expected to have a 3-2 top 25 record, but was actually 4-1 for +1. For the season, they would have been expected to go 27-4, but were 28-3, so also +1.

Duke would have been expected to go 3-4 against the top 25, but was actually 4-3 for +1. For the season, they would have been expected to go 26.5-4.5, but were 26-5, so -0.5.

Kentucky would have been expected to go 1-1 against the top 25, which was their actual record for +0. For the season, they would have been expected to go 29-2, so were again +0.

The table below shows how each team in the top 25 compares in Actual versus Expected wins in “Losable” games.

Tennessee, Mizzou, Pittsburgh and Wisconsin all stand out as maybe not so good as the computers think.

Thoughts?

In other action, UT over OU in Austin—as projected. Mizzou over Iowa St in Ames—as projected.

The Jayhawks over K-State—as projected.

A&M over Okie St in College Station—as projected (and predicted—all A&M had to do was show up).

And Baylor over Tech in an at-risk game in Lubbock.

With but one game remaining in the season for each team, all eyes are on Baylor, A&M, Mizzou, and UT, as two of these teams will take next Wednesday off along with KU and K-State.

WEEKEND UPDATE

The Rules of Projection:

Projected W’s: Home games vs. Peer and lower level teams and
Road games vs. teams two or more Tiers lower;

Projected L’s: Road games vs. Peer and higher level teams and
Home games vs. teams two or more Tiers higher;

At-risk games: Home games vs. teams one tier higher and
Road games vs. teams one tier lower.

With 15 games down, 1 to go:

Tier 1: KU, K-State

Tier 2: Baylor, Mizzou, Okie St, Texas A&M, UT

Tier 3: Oklahoma, Texas Tech

Tier 4: Colorado, Iowa St, Nebraska

The Final 2010 REAL Standings Projection, as they merge with the newspaper standings at approximately 7:00 o’clock Saturday night:

1. 14.5-1.5

KU (14-1) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at Mizzou
2. 12-4

K-State (11-4) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: N/A

3. 11-5

Baylor (10-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: N/A

4. 10.5-5.5

Texas A&M (10-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at OU

Mizzou (10-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: vs. KU

6. 9-7

UT (9-6) Projected L’s: at Baylor
Losable games: N/A

Okie St (8-7) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: N/A

8. 5.5-10.5

Colorado (5-10) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: vs. Tech

9. 4.5-11.5

Texas Tech (4-11) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at CU

Oklahoma (4-11) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: vs. A&M

11. 3-13

Iowa St (3-12) Projected L’s: at K-State,
Losable games: N/A

12. 2-14

Nebraska (2-13) Projected L’s: at OSU
Losable games: N/A

What to Watch

SATURDAY

1. A&M at Oklahoma (11:00a.m.)**1/2 (At-risk game)

A win by the Aggies against the free-falling Sooners wraps up a first round bye.

2. Nebraska at Okie St (12:30p.m.)* (Projected W: Okie St)

The one meaningless game of the weekend—unless you think dropping to 8-8 puts them at risk of missing out on the Big Dance. With W’s over both KU and K-State, that is unlikely.

3. KU at Mizzou (1:00p.m.)**** (at-risk game)

For the second time in four days, the Jayhawks take on a Top 5 team. However, unlike Wednesday night, when they handled the No. 5 team in the nation handily in picking up a projected victory, their game vs. the No. 5 team in the conference is an at-risk affair, being in Columbia before a rare full house.

4. Texas Tech at Colorado (2:00p.m.)*1/2 (At-risk game)

CU goes for its sixth win and sole possession of eighth place. Now that’s meaning.

5. Texas at Baylor (3:00p.m.)**** (Projected W: BU)

Baylor is on a roll and at Home. UT is desperate to get its act together in time to salvage its season in March. If the Longhorns have any character, this will be a barnburner.

6. Iowa St at K-State (5:00p.m.)** (Projected W: K-State)

The biggest shock of the weekend would be if this game were close.

–Mark

Is this a harbinger of things to come? Is there a disturbance in The Force?

Well, as disturbances go, it is a minor one.

In the REAL world, this game—13-0 vs. 7-6 and all—was accurately pegged as an at-risk game, as Tier One at Tier Two games always are. It, along with the Jayhawks’ game at Mizzou this coming Saturday are why KU’s projected record was 15-1, not 16-0.

The question now that the Hawks’ PR is 14.5-1.5 is which of those figures is rounded up and which is rounded down in Columbia. (Not to mention that small matter of protecting the Home Court for the 59th straight time in between the two at-riskers.)

As for Saturday, no team is likely to win an at-risk game when the opponent shoots 60% from the field, and 53% from three point range, including circus shots riskier than performing a trapeze act with no safety net.

Indeed, my close personal friend Doug in Denver assures me that no KU team in the past ten years, including some of Roy Williams’ most defensively challenged, has been subjected to the shooting exhibition put on by the Cowboys on Saturday. I will trust Doug on that, because the only time I have known him to be wrong is when we had that argument about Ginger and Maryanne.

The bottom line is that KU lost ½ game in the REAL Standings this weekend: the first time (obviously) they have gone backwards this season in fourteen games.

Let’s see. What other things of note happened this weekend.

K-State over Mizzou? Nothing of import there. K-State won at Home as projected.

A&M over UT? Nope. The Aggies won at Home as projected.

Colorado over Iowa St? Not even. The Buffs won at Home as projected.

Nebraska taking down Tech? A ½ game pick-up by the Tier Four Team over its Tier Three opponent. Would be of interest if anyone cared.

Baylor over Oklahoma? A ½ game pick-up by the Tier Two Bears on the Road against a team that could be arrested for impersonating a Tier Four team. Although it is a damn fine impersonation. Even better than Tech’s having been swept by the Red Raiders recently. Did keep Baylor in line for a day of rest in the Big 12 tourney.

WEEKEND UPDATE

The Rules of Projection:

Projected W’s: Home games vs. Peer and lower level teams and
Road games vs. teams two or more Tiers lower;

Projected L’s: Road games vs. Peer and higher level teams and
Home games vs. teams two or more Tiers higher;

At-risk games: Home games vs. teams one tier higher and
Road games vs. teams one tier lower.

With 13 games down, 3 to go:

Tier 1: KU, K-State

Tier 2: Baylor, Mizzou, Okie St, Texas A&M, UT

Tier 3: Oklahoma, Texas Tech

Tier 4: Colorado, Iowa St, Nebraska

February 18, 2010 REAL Big 12 Standings:

1. 14.5-1.5

KU (13-1) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at Mizzou
2. 12-4

K-State (11-3) Projected L’s: at KU
Losable games: N/A

3. 10.5-5.5

Texas A&M (9-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at OU

Mizzou (9-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: vs. KU

Baylor (9-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at Tech

6. 9-7

UT (8-6) Projected L’s: at Baylor
Losable games: N/A

Okie St (8-6) Projected L’s: at A&M
Losable games: N/A

8. 5-11

Texas Tech (4-10) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: vs. Baylor, at CU

9. 4.5-11.5

Oklahoma (4-10) Projected L’s: at UT
Losable games: vs. A&M

Colorado (4-10) Projected L’s: at NU
Losable games: vs. Tech

11. 3-13

Iowa St (3-11) Projected L’s: vs. Mizzou, at K-State,
Losable games: N/A

Nebraska (2-12) Projected L’s: at OSU
Losable games: N/A

What to Watch

BIG MONDAY

1. Oklahoma at Texas (8:00p.m.)*1/2 (Projected W: UT)

This is not what ESPN envisioned when the scheduled this game for Big Monday. Is it too late to substitute K-State at KU?

TUESDAY

2. Colorado at Nebraska (7:00p.m.)* (Projected W: NU)

The Huskers try to extend their winning streak to two. . .

3. Baylor at Texas Tech (7:00p.m.)** (at-risk game)

The Red Raiders have to beat someone again sometime. Don’t they?

4. Mizzou at Iowa St (7:00p.m.)**1/2 (Projected W: Mizzou)

Mizzou still fighting for a first round bye. Iowa St is fighting for. . or are they?

WEDNESDAY

5. K-State at KU (7:00p.m.)***** (Projected W: KU)

The most important game between KU and K-State in Allen Fieldhouse since 1974, when the two met for the right to be the Big 8’s only representative in the NCAA Tournament. A victory for K-State keeps alive its shot at a share of the conference championship—their first since ’77.

For the record, the Jayhawks won the ’74 contest 91-53 and went to the Final Four. K-State lost to Bradley in the first round of the Collegiate Commissioners Association Tournament, a short-lived event created to give second place teams post-season action in a tournament not called the NIT.

6. Oklahoma St at Texas A&M (8:00p.m.)**** (Projected W: A&M)

Hey, Okie St, whirl around the court like five Tasmanian Devils for 40 minutes and shoot 60% in every game the rest of the year, and you are our 2010 Big 12 Tournament and NCAA Champions.

You could also win the Mega-Millions Lottery twice between now and April 5. Same odds.

What is more likely is that the Cowboys drained their reservoir of hot shooting, good breaks, and frenetic energy Saturday night. A&M might win this one by just showing up.

–Mark

What it was not was particularly exciting.

You’ve got your Kansas at Home putting its game against Oklahoma away in the first half. You’ve got your K-State taking out Tech in what was nominally a Road game. Query: if a game is played in Lubbock and no one is there to cheer, is it still a Road game?

You’ve got your Mizzou romping over Colorado at the Paige; your Texas over Oklahoma St without working up a sweat in Austin; your Iowa St over Nebraska in Ames in a game that was more close than good; and your Baylor over A&M in the town of the Dr.Pepper and Texas Ranger museums, as well as the Elite Café, where Elvis once ate, in a game that did elicit a few “Wows” as the teams exchanged 3 pointers like sports cards in the closing minutes with the game on the line.

As a result, not a smidgen of change in the REAL Standings. Just a reduction of games remaining in the fight for 2nd through 4th places and the attendant first round Big 12 tournament bye.

MIDWEEK UPDATE

No surprise here. The Tier placement of the 12 teams remains as unchanged as the REAL Standings.

The Rules of Projection::

Projected W’s: Home games vs. Peer and lower level teams and
Road games vs. teams two or more Tiers lower;

Projected L’s: Road games vs. Peer and higher level teams and
Home games vs. teams two or more Tiers higher;

At-risk games: Home games vs. teams one tier higher and
Road games vs. teams one tier lower.

With 13 games down, 3 to go:

Tier 1: KU, K-State

Tier 2: Baylor, Mizzou, Okie St, Texas A&M, UT

Tier 3: Oklahoma, Texas Tech

Tier 4: Colorado, Iowa St, Nebraska

The February 25, 2010 ten shopping months ‘til Christmas REAL Big 12 Standings:

1. 15-1

KU (13-0) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at Okie St, at Mizzou
2. 12-4

K-State (10-3) Projected L’s: at KU
Losable games: N/A

3. 10.5-5.5

Texas A&M (8-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at OU

Mizzou (9-4) Projected L’s: at K-State,
Losable games: vs. KU

5. 10-6

Baylor (8-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at OU, at Tech

6. 9-7

UT (8-5) Projected L’s: at A&M, at Baylor
Losable games: N/A

7. 8.5-7.5

Okie St (7-6) Projected L’s: at A&M
Losable games: vs. KU

8. 5.5-10.5

Texas Tech (4-9) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at NU, vs. Baylor, at CU

9. 5-11

Oklahoma (4-9) Projected L’s: at UT
Losable games: vs. Baylor, vs. A&M

10.4.5-11.5

Colorado (3-10) Projected L’s: at NU
Losable games: vs. Tech

11. 3-13

Iowa St (3-10) Projected L’s: at CU, vs. Mizzou, at K-State,
Losable games: N/A

12. 2.5-13.5

Nebraska (1-12) Projected L’s: at OSU
Losable games: vs. Tech

What to Watch

SATURDAY

1. Iowa St at Colorado (11:30a.m.)** (Projected W: CU)

The Buffs will fight with their last breath to keep alive their dream of an 8th place finish. . .

2. Baylor at Oklahoma (12:30p.m.)**1/2 (at-risk game)

The Bears are in position for a Top 4 finish. The Sooners are in position to fall into oblivion. You know—like where Nebraska, Iowa St and Colorado reside.

3. Texas at Texas A&M (1:00p.m.) **** (Projected W: A&M)

These two schools don’t like each other. Not even in basketball. Reed Arena would have given AFH a run for its money in sheer raucousness when the No. 1 team in the country came to town. It might be even wilder Saturday. . .

4. Texas Tech at Nebraska (3:00p.m.)* (at-risk game)

Two teams from nowhere going nowhere. At least the Red Raiders will feel atHome if, as has been the case recently, no one shows up in Lincoln.

5. KU at Okie St (3:00p.m.)**** (at-risk game)

The second of three delicious conference games, timed perfectly to allow your average couch potato to watch all three and get out of the house long enough for a sumptuous dinner prior to. . .

6. Mizzou at K-State (7:00p.m.)**** (Projected W: K-State)

K-State can wrap up second place and avenge its fist loss in conference play in one game. Kinda like the Certs game of Big 12 basketball.. Whether the Octagon portends Doom for Mizzou remains to be seen; but rest assured all eight sides will be rocking for the ESPN-U cameras. Watch closely and cast your vote for College Station, Stillwater, or Manhattan as the COW (Crowd of the Week) winner.

–Mark

Well, guess what: Two weeks later, after 12 games, the Big 12 race is more over.

Moreover, it is so more over that the focus is now on Places 2-4. Or, more importantly, Places 2-3, which come with not only a bye in the first round of the Big 12 After-the-REAL-Season Tournament, but no possibility of encountering KU before the Final game.

In the battle for those coveted spots, K-State, Mizzou, A&M and Texas all picked up wins in at-risk games on the Road.

What’s that, you say, isn’t that an abnormal number of Road wins? Isn’t the premise of the REAL Standings that Road wins are extremely difficult to come by?

Well, yes–and no. The REAL Standings stands for the proposition that it is extremely difficult to win on the Road vs. better or comparable teams. If the teams are assigned to the correct Tier, it is like pulling teeth without anesthetic for a lower Tier team to take out a higher one on the Road; and nearly as tough to pull out a Road victory against a team in the same Tier.

But a certain number of Road wins are expected. It is just that most of them are what Dickie V would call M and M-er’s; i.e., mismatches.

The four Road wins Saturday were not surprising. All were by more highly regarded teams over ones lower in status: K-State, A&M, Mizzou, and UT over Oklahoma, Iowa St, Nebraska, and Tech, respectively. All were accurately characterized as at-risk games—not Projected Losses, with the exception of A&M over Iowa St, which was a Projected victory for the Aggies.

Both Home victors had been Projected to prevail: KU over Colorado and Okie St over Baylor.

WEEKEND UPDATE

We started the season with two Tiers, back when it appeared that Nebraska, Iowa St, and Colorado might be on the verge of being good teams. And they might have been in other conferences. But, in the Big 12, they are simply punching bags. So a third Tier was necessitated.

And now, would you believe a fourth? Oklahoma and Tech are both a notch above NU, ISU, and CU, yet clearly less than on peer-level with Baylor, Mizzou, Okie St, Texas A&M, and UT.

Nevertheless, even with four Tiers, the same general Rules of Projection, however, apply:

Projected W’s: Home games vs. Peer and lower level teams and
Road games vs. teams two or more Tiers lower;

Projected L’s: Road games vs. Peer and higher level teams and
Home games vs. teams two or more Tiers higher;

At-risk games: Home games vs. teams one tier higher and
Road games vs. teams one tier lower.

With 12 games down, 4 to go:

Tier 1: KU, K-State

Tier 2: Baylor, Mizzou, Okie St, Texas A&M, UT.

Tier 3: Oklahoma, Texas Tech

Tier 4: Colorado, Iowa St, Nebraska

With but 4 games remaining in 2010, the REAL Big 12 Standings:

1. 15-1

KU (12-0) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at Okie St, at Mizzou
2. 12-4

K-State (9-3) Projected L’s: at KU
Losable games: N/A

3. 10.5-5.5

Texas A&M (8-4) Projected L’s: at Baylor
Losable games: at OU

Mizzou (8-4) Projected L’s: at K-State,
Losable games: vs. KU

5. 10-6

Baylor (7-5) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at OU, at Tech

6. 9-7

UT (7-5) Projected L’s: at A&M, at Baylor
Losable games: N/A

7. 8.5-7.5

Okie St (7-5) Projected L’s: at UT, at A&M
Losable games: vs. KU

8. 5.5-10.5

Texas Tech (4-8) Projected L’s: vs. K-State
Losable games: at NU, vs. Baylor, at CU

9. 5-11

Oklahoma (4-8) Projected L’s: at KU, at UT
Losable games: vs. Baylor, vs. A&M

10.4.5-11.5

Colorado (3-9) Projected L’s: at Mizzou, at NU
Losable games: vs. Tech

11. 3-13

Iowa St (2-10) Projected L’s: at CU, vs. Mizzou, at K-State,
Losable games: N/A

12. 2.5-13.5

Nebraska (1-11) Projected L’s: at ISU, at OSU
Losable games: vs. Tech

What to Watch

BIG MONDAY

1. Oklahoma at KU (8:00p.m.)** (Projected W: KU)

If OU were at full strength and on a roll, this game would be on Upset Watch. As it is, the Jayhawks go dormie with their 58th straight W at Home in Collins’ penultimate game in AFH.

TUESDAY

2. K-State at Texas Tech (7:00p.m.)*** (at-risk game for both teams)

Tech can make life difficult for visitors to Lubbock. Last year, when they were arguably the worst team in the league, the Red Raiders took out the Big 12 champions at Home. They would likely have beaten UT Saturday in a 41 minute game. If K-State does not get off to a good start, they will be in trouble.

WEDNESDAY

3. Nebraska at Iowa St (6:30p.m.) ½* (Projected W: ISU)

This game promises to be so uninteresting it should be declared an Olympic event.

4. Colorado at Mizzou (6:30p.m.)* (Projected W: Mizzou)

It’s on the schedule. Tickets have been sold and all. Might as well play it whether anyone wants to watch it or not. . .

5. Okie St at Texas (8:00p.m.)*** (Projected W: UT)

Somebody says, “Bye-bye, bye. . .”

6. Texas A&M at Baylor (6:30p.m.)***1/2 (at-risk game for both teams)

The continuation of a wild one in College Station.

–Mark

KU’s victory in their Projected Loss game in College Station did not end the race—it had been over for all REAL purposes for two weeks—but it did serve as an exclamation point on their sixth straight conference title. The question now, with five games remaining in the season, is what comes after an exclamation point?

The quest for the other three byes in the Big 12 post-season tournament (inaccurately dubbed the “Big 12 Championship,” omitting the more accurate descriptors “meaningless” and “tournament” in favor of the misleading term “Championship”) is the primary remaining matter of interest.

Mizzou took a big step toward landing the fourth day off by winning an at-risk game at Home vs. UT. Meanwhile, UT is on life support, currently residing in 5th place in the REAL Standings, despite the considerable Projection Advantage of being a Tier 1 team.

And, yes, with five losses, UT is a marginal Tier 1 team if based strictly on accomplishments—or lack thereof. They are still, however, a team that has the talent to win out, and Rick Barnes has started removing his thumb from a dark place by utilizing his most talented players most of the time, instead of throwing any stiff named Mason, Chapman, Hill, Lucas, or Wangmene on the court with the game on the line. On the other hand, don’t know what he can do about Dexter Pittman, who was able to accomplish precisely zero shot attempts in Columbia. Not zero points (he made two free throws): zero shot attempts.

In other games that affected the REAL Standings, Colorado took down OU in Boulder and Okie St overcame Hilton’s Magic, each picking up 1/2 REAL game int he process. Projected W’s by Baylor over Tech in Waco and K-State over Nebraska in Manhattan left all four teams treading water..

MIDWEEK UPDATE

With 11 games down, 5 to go:

Tier 1: KU, K-State, Texas A&M, UT.

Tier 2: Baylor, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Okie St, Texas Tech

Tier 3: Colorado, Iowa St, Nebraska

February 18, 2010 REAL Big 12 Standings:

1. 15-1

KU (11-0) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at Okie St, at Mizzou
2. 11-5

Texas A&M (7-4) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at BU, at OU

K-State (8-3) Projected L’s: at KU
Losable games: at OU, at Tech

4. 9.5-6.5

Mizzou (7-4) Projected L’s: at K-State,
Losable games: at NU, at ISU vs. KU

5. 9-7

UT (6-5) Projected L’s: at A&M
Losable games: at Tech, at BU

6. 8.5-7.5

Okie St (6-5) Projected L’s: at UT, at A&M
Losable games: vs. KU

7. 8-8

Baylor (7-4) Projected L’s: at OSU, at OU, at Tech
Losable games: vs. A&M, vs. UT

8. 7-9

Texas Tech (4-7) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: vs. UT, vs. K-State, at NU, at CU

9. 6-10

Oklahoma (4-7) Projected L’s: at KU, at UT
Losable games: vs. K-State, vs. A&M

10.4.5-11.5

Colorado (3-8) Projected L’s: at KU, at Mizzou, at NU
Losable games: vs. Tech

11. 3.5-12.5

Iowa St (2-9) Projected L’s: vs. A&M, at CU, at K-State,
Losable games: vs. Mizzou

12. 3-13

Nebraska (1-10) Projected L’s: at ISU, at OSU
Losable games: vs. Mizzou, vs. Tech

What to Watch

SATURDAY

1. Baylor at Okie St (12:30p.m.)***1/2 (Projected W: Okie St)

In a strange twist, Baylor’s three remaining Projected Losses are all to lesser teams than their two at-risk games—due, of course, to where the games are played. Meaning the Bears could be the sleeper for that all important first round bye in the conference tourney.

2. Texas at Texas Tech (1:00p.m.)***1/2 (at-risk game for both teams)

Tech could have beaten UT in Austin had they been able to maintain their energy level for 40 minutes. With a wild, frenzied crowd in Lubbock, they have a REAL shot at taking down the despised Longhorns. . .

3. Colorado at KU (3:00p.m.) ** (Projected W: KU)

The Magic Number for a share of the title drops to 1. Zero if the Hawks can get a little help from their friends in Norman.

4. Texas A&M at Iowa St (3:00p.m.)**1/2 (Projected W: A&M)

Nice effort by A&M on Big Monday in almost spoiling KU’s dream of a perfect conference season. If they rest on their laurels (and, yes, there are sometimes laurels in a loss), they could be in for a long afternoon.

5. K-State at Oklahoma (5:00p.m.)*** (at-risk game for both teams)

The Sooners are a decimated team for various reasons. But, then, so was Tennessee when they knocked KU from the ranks of the unbeaten. At any rate, OU on the Road, even with a depleted roster, is at least as dangerous as Nebraska in the Octagon. . .

6. Mizzou at Nebraska (5:00p.m.)*** (at-risk game for both teams)

What are the chances NU can shoot 60+% from 3 point land again. Or 58% overall. And outrebound their opponent. And have 23 assists. And still lose? About the same as the chances of Mizzou winning a Road game. . .

–Mark

Excuse me? A team that is 7-3 is hotter than one that is 10-0? A team whose top two Road wins are in Columbia and Lubbock hotter than a team that has won in Manhattan and Austin?

On the bright side: Can’t pin this one on Reid Gettys. I don’t recall who made this ridiculous statement, but it definitely was not Reid.

No denying, though, that A&M helped itself with its win Saturday in Lubbock. The Aggies were the only Road team to prevail this weekend. In fact, other than Mizzou, the only one to come close. OU, NU, CU, and ISU, the four teams playing the worst in the league, lost big to Okie St, UT, K-State and KU. Those four games, as well as Mizzou’s last second loss to Baylor, were all Projected as L’s and, as a result, were of no import.

The Aggies win in Lubbock?

Definitely of import. . .

WEEKEND UPDATE

The time has come to agnowledge A&M as a Tier 1 team. Not that they have accomplished anything great; but, other than KU, who has? They are unbeaten at Home. They have two wins on the Road vs. teams not named Nebraska, Colorado, or Iowa St. They did everything but beat UT in Austin. Their only REAL blemish is getting run off the court in Manhattan.

The temptation is to say that the Aggies’ claim to Tier 1 status could come tumbling down if they lose Monday night to KU (a game, by the way, they are, as a Tier 1 team, projected to win). But why would that make any difference, even if it happens? They would be in good company, joining the other Tier 1 teams not named KU to lose at Home to the Jayhawks.

With 10 games down, 6 to go:

Tier 1: KU, K-State, Texas A&M, UT.

Tier 2: Baylor, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Okie St, Texas Tech

Tier 3: Colorado, Iowa St, Nebraska

February 14, 2010 REAL Big 12 Standings:

1. 14-2

KU (10-0) Projected L’s: at A&M
Losable games: at Okie St, at Mizzou
2. 12-4

Texas A&M (7-3) Projected L’s: N/A
Losable games: at BU, at OU

3. 11-5

K-State (7-3) Projected L’s: at KU
Losable games: at OU, at Tech

4. 9.5-6.5

UT (6-4) Projected L’s: at A&M
Losable games: at Mizzou, at Tech at BU

5. 9-7

Mizzou (6-4) Projected L’s: at K-State,
Losable games: vs. UT, at NU, at ISU vs. KU

6. 8-8

Baylor (6-4) Projected L’s: at OSU, at OU, at Tech
Losable games: vs. A&M, vs. UT

7. 8-8

Okie St (5-5) Projected L’s: at UT, at A&M
Losable games: at Iowa St, vs. KU

8. 7-9

Texas Tech (4-6) Projected L’s: at BU
Losable games: vs. UT, vs. K-State, at NU, at CU

9. 6.5-9.5

Oklahoma (4-6) Projected L’s: at KU, at UT
Losable games: at CU, vs. K-State, vs. A&M

10. 4-12

Iowa St (2-8) Projected L’s: vs. A&M, at CU, at K-State,
Losable games: vs. Okie St, vs. Mizzou

Colorado (2-8) Projected L’s: at KU, at Mizzou, at NU
Losable games: vs. OU, vs. Tech

12. 3-13

Nebraska (1-9) Projected L’s: at K-State, at ISU, at OSU
Losable games: vs. Mizzou, vs. Tech,

What to Watch

MONDAY

1. KU at Texas A&M (8:00p.m.)***** (at-risk game for both teams)

A&M’s chance to make a statement. Win this game, and second place is the Aggies’ to lose. . .

TUESDAY

2. Texas Tech at Baylor (7:00p.m.)**1/2 (Projected W: Baylor)

Tech attempts to pick up its second straight Road win. Unfortunately, unlike their most recent Road Kill, Baylor’s roster hasn’t been decimated by the police blotter. No opinion is herein expressed as to whether it should be. . .

WEDNESDAY

3. Nebraska at K-State (6:00p.m.) *1/2 (Projected W: K-State)

Has Nebraska decided to mail in the rest of the season? Looked like it Saturday in Austin.

4. Oklahoma at Colorado (7:00p.m.)** (at-risk game for both teams)

After taking down UT in Norman, the Sooners fought the law and guess what—the law won. Don’t look now, but CU is licking its chops like every ACC team other than NC State anticipating a game against UNC.

5. Okie St at Iowa St (7:00p.m.)** (at-risk game for both teams)

The Cowboys have but one win on the Road: at K-State. With UT and A&M their remaining games away from Historic Gallagher-Iba Arena, they need to take advantage of this chance. Might be their last one. . .

6. Texas at Mizzou (8:00p.m.)**** (at-risk game for both teams)

Desperate times require desperate measures. These are two desperate teams. Should be fun.

–Mark

Yes, indeed, it was. And although KU has been getting major props for winning so handily, and is clearly the better team, I read nothing into the Hawks’ methodical execution of the Longhorns other than that UT appeared to be afraid to compete. They looked like they were reluctant to be on the same court as KU and just wanted the whole thing to be over with as quickly as possible. Kind of like when I rode a mule to the bottom of the Grand Canyon—except that after the pain went away, I was glad to have done it.

In Tier 2 Developments, Tech’s win in Norman resulted in the Raiders and Sooners swapping places and Projected records. And Baylor picked up ½ game in the REAL world with its last second come from behind victory in Lincoln.

Mizzou over Iowa St changed nothing.

MIDWEEK UPDATE

UT’s recent performance (losing 4 of their last 6 conference games) has raised the issue of whether they should be considered a “contender” in the REAL Standings categorizations. And the Answer, as always, is that:

1. Those who think UT is not deserving of that status can adjust them downward in their own “REAL Standings” and recalculate their projected W-L record based on that assessment; and

2. I am generally reluctant to change a team’s status as long as there is any reasonable argument for keeping them at their current level; otherwise, teams can yo-yo up and down in a most irritating manner depending on whether they are temporarily hot or cold.

Of course, UT is not a “contender.” But who is? KU has this thing wrapped up as surely as it did the UNC Final Four game in 2008 at 40-12. You know, the game that was a bigger catastrophe for a certain Tar Heel coach than the 2004 tsunami, being as how the Haiti earthquake had not yet happened at that time.

So no one is, technically, a contender. We have a winner and the best of the also-rans. Let’s simply refer to them as Tier 1 teams.

And a case can be made that it is still premature to remove UT from the Tier 1 list: they have as much raw talent as anyone in the league, including KU—at least athletic talent, if not suit and tie talent; and they are still in the Top 15 in the KenPom (13) and Sagarin (11) ratings.

So I will leave them in Tier 1 on my books for the time being.

However, were UT downgraded to Tier 2, their projected record would be 8-8, with Projected L’s at Mizzou, Tech, A&M, and Baylor.

As for suggestions that Mizzou or A&M should be upgraded to Tier 1, I need them to Show Me or Gig ‘em just a little more than they have to this point. Mizzou’s KenPom (14) and Sagarin (17) ratings are comparable to UT’s, but their best win is at Tech, where they need plenty of assistance from the Home team at the FT line to escape with the W. Not to mention that they were rolled in Lawrence.

A&M, meanwhile, is substantially lower in both KenPom (38) and Sagarin (26), despite having prevailed in Columbia—the Aggies’ best win—and was rolled in Manhattan.

In other words, to both teams, Do More.

If both team were promoted to Tier 1, with no other adjustments to any other team, their Projected Records would be 11.5-4.5, good for the inside track to what Tiger calls being the First Loser—or, put another way, they would be the Rachel Uchitel of the Big 12.

With 9 games down, 7 to go for everyone:

Tier 1: KU, K-State, and UT.

Tier 2: A&M, Baylor, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Okie St, Texas Tech

Tier 3: Colorado, Iowa St, Nebraska

February 11, 2010 REAL Big 12 Standings:

1. 14.5-1.5

KU (9-0) Projected L’s: None
Losable games: at A&M, at Okie St, at Mizzou

2. 11-5

K-State (6-3) Projected L’s: at KU
Losable games: at OU, at Tech

3. 10-6

UT (5-4) Projected L’s: None
Losable games: at Mizzou, at Tech, at A&M, at BU

4. 9-7

Mizzou (6-3) Projected L’s: at BU, at K-State,
Losable games: vs. UT, at NU, at ISU vs. KU

5. 8.5-7.5

Baylor (5-4) Projected L’s: at OSU, at OU, at Tech
Losable games: vs. UT

Texas A&M (6-3) Projected L’s: at Tech, at BU, at OU
Losable games: vs. KU, at ISU, vs. UT

7. 8-8

Okie St (4-5) Projected L’s: at UT, at A&M
Losable games: at Iowa St, vs. KU

Texas Tech (4-5) Projected L’s: at BU
Losable games: vs. UT, vs. K-State, at NU, at CU

9. 7-9

Oklahoma (4-5) Projected L’s: at OSU, at KU, at UT
Losable games: at CU, vs. K-State

10. 4.5-11.5

Iowa St (2-7) Projected L’s: at KU, at CU, at K-State
Losable games: vs. Okie St, vs. A&M, vs. Mizzou

11. 4-12

Colorado (2-7) Projected L’s: at K-State, at KU, at Mizzou, at NU
Losable games: vs. OU, vs. Tech

12. 3-13

Nebraska (1-8) Projected L’s: at UT, at K-State, at ISU, at OSU
Losable games: vs. Mizzou, vs. Tech,

What to Watch

SATURDAY

1. Mizzou at Baylor (12:30p.m.)***** (Projected W: Baylor)

Mizzou’s chance to make a statement.

2. Oklahoma at Okie St (1:00p.m.)*** (Projected W: Okie St)

If Steven Pledger and Andrew Fitzgerald are reinstated by Saturday, the Sooners just might steal one on the Road.

3. Nebraska at Texas (3:00p.m.) *1/2 (Projected W: UT)

UT’s opportunity to get well. Or not, if the Huskers confuse the Erwin Center for Allen Fieldouse.

4. Texas A&M at Texas Tech (4:00p.m.)***1/2 (Projected W: Tech)

The most compelling game of the weekend. A&M cannot afford to be caught looking ahead to KU and Big Monday.

5. Colorado at K-State (5:00p.m.)**1/2 (Projected W: K-State)

Shouldn’t be much to watch. K-State should not be caught napping after a week off. But, as Chuck Berry once said, “You never can tell.” The Buffs are more than capable of putting an opponent to sleep.

6. Iowa St at KU (7:00p.m.)* (Projected W: KU)

The Magic Number will be 3 late Saturday night.

–Mark