I did not realize the posted records were adjusted that way. I just thought they were overall records. No matter.

If beating the sips by 17 (never closer than 8) does not count as a Bad Loss, what does???

quote:

---

i will....they lost at mizzou which is not a good home team considering they have five losses at home this year.

---

You are right if five equals three. One to KU, one to A&M, one to Nebraska with the whole team out.

They've beaten Purdue, K-State and Texas there. But no, they stink at home.

I stand corrected those two games to michigan state and illinois were at a nuetral court even though both games were played in missouri.

The four players were out against nebraska, and then 3 returned, so there entire team wasn't out against us.

bluto08 wrote:

quote:

---

We slid when we LOST three games in a row. Show me where texas lost three games in a row or even two. The thing about it is the responded everytime so they deserve that ranking.

---

Texas lost back-to-back games over the holidays.

While ranked #5, they were upset on the road by then #10 Michigan State.

Then, while #10, they were upset AT HOME by then UNRANKED Wisconsin.

Granted when compared to our three game skid to then unranked teams, we can't argue that this was worse. But it seams like their upset of UCLA bought them a couple of freebies as far as the polls and writers are concerned.

I'm not arguing that we should be ahead of them, but what I am arguing is that all this talk about their #2 seed and being a "lock" while the same writers are putting us in "should be in" or "work left to do" categories after a 5 game winning streak is crap.

t.u. has NOT been dominating in their Big XII wins. When comparing, now we have throw OU out of the picture all together since lowly Colorado spanked them. But ISU never came close against us, yet took them to OT (when t.u. had to play from behind to go into OT in the first place).

I totally agree with the arguement that Aggies would be throwing a fit if people called us "struggling" if we were winning our games by 3 or less points, so therefore it's not a totally fair argument to do that to the sips. . .

BUT

If they are held to such a high standard with such high regard by the national media, then where are these critics who hated us after a 5-OT loss at home to unranked Baylor when unranked Wisconsin beat t.u. at home to hand them their second consecutive loss? Also, if their sh*t doesn't stink because they beat UCLA, then no one should be satisfied that lowly ISU took them to OT, they beat OU by a bucket, or couldn't beat BU at home by more than ten. . .

So, Aggies aside, forget the comparison. When you simply argue t.u.'s performances by comparing their own wins to their own losses and the rankings at the time, there's plenty of inconsistency for any ranked team to complain about making them a lock and a #2 seed. . .

[This message has been edited by AgAlum1998 (edited 2/11/2008 9:07p).]

5 seed in the West at Bracketography

bracketography.com

KState, meanwhile, is 5 in the East

[This message has been edited by Wildcat0206 (edited 2/12/2008 11:51a).]

quote:

---

Also, if their sh*t doesn't stink because they beat UCLA, then no one should be satisfied that lowly ISU took them to OT, they beat OU by a bucket, or couldn't beat BU at home by more than ten. . .

---

I don't get it. Why are so many of you hung up on the fact that Texas is getting credit for a WIN? Texas beat ISU, even if it was in overtime. Should Texas not be punished for losing to Wisconsin since it happened on a last-second shot? Texas beat OU on the road by 10, beat Baylor by 8. It seems you're being pretty picky here.

And the argument that the UCLA and Tenn wins shouldn't count because they were early in the season is ridiculous. Why play tough teams then?

Barnes creates a tough schedule every year, and the NCAA encourages everybody else to do it. A&M can do it also. The NCAA will reward Texas for it.

[This message has been edited by MacD (edited 2/12/2008 1:55p).]

quote:

---

I'm not arguing that we should be ahead of them, but what I am arguing is that all this talk about their #2 seed and being a "lock" while the same writers are putting us in "should be in" or "work left to do" categories after a 5 game winning streak is crap.

---

If you really need to justify it to yourself (and trust me, I'm not saying you need to), think of it this way: The Big 12 will send a minimum of 3-4 to the tourney; unless the horns tank REALLY hard, they are in. Doesn't make them a dominating team, but it is safe to say they are in.