Whatever happens from here, from a conference standpoint it's another disappointing Tournament performance with only two teams making it to the second weekend (when you take into account the Big 12 is considered to be top to bottom the best conference). I'm really starting to think there is more to the notion that the grueling gauntlet of constantly beating up on each other both literally and figuratively throughout the Big 12 Conference schedule and Tournament leaves too many of our teams exhausted and usually dealing with injuries and guys not 100% because they're playing hurt, etc. I know the other side of the coin is it should better prepare teams to play high end competition in pressure packed games, but more and more I'm thinking that often gets more than negated when your team is tired, beaten up, and psychologically exhausted from 2+ solid months of playing nothing but high end, physical teams all capable of beating you on any given night.

Not suggesting teams in other P5 leagues don't to some degree deal with similar issues, but it just seems like it's more intense in the Big 12.

Here are the records: Tracking 2023 March Madness men's records by conference | NCAA.com

I don't know. It has kinda always been this way. I remember picking games years ago where I'd pick a mid-level ACC team thinking they'd been "tested" and they'd get beat. I don't think the toughest conference has ever really had a true advantage in the tournament.

It's even debatable which conference is doing the best. The Big East I guess, but now their champ is out. It isn't the Big XII, but if Kansas had won then maybe you could still make an argument for us.

Meh. It's an age old story -- twist the description to make it fit the narrative (not suggesting you are doing that JB, just making a general comment). If the team from one conference wins, it's because the winner is "battle tested" from all the hard fought competition more than any other conference. If they lose, then the narrative is just flipped around and it's suggested they just beat each other up. So which is it? Competition prepares you for the moment or competition drains you for the moment?

People can define Best Conference in a number of ways, and most do in a manner that supports the logic of their conference being the Best. Just go look at the Northeastern media and some national media today squawking about the overrated Big 12 and the fact the Big East was the best conference all year.

I said it in December and I finish the year saying it. The Big 12 was the most competitive conference top to bottom, not necessarily chocked full of great teams. There's really no team in the Big 12 that doesn't have a potential fatal flaw. Kansas got more out of a pipsqueak team with no depth than I've ever seen. There was a good chance it would bite them at some point. Our flaws were exposed back in November. TCU's flaws were evident all year when they would go through mysterious scoring lapses. Iowa St was waiting to explode at any moment, seemingly able to throw the ball in from 94 feet against us but not hit the broadside of a barn against anyone else.

The good news for Tang and crew (and unfortunately UT) is that there is no team in CBB this year who didn't or doesn't have a fatal flaw, so with the right roll they could end up with the Natty and the Big 12 could go 3 consecutive.

Just my opinion. Others may vary.

DanaDane said:

---

Meh. It's an age old story -- twist the description to make it fit the narrative (not suggesting you are doing that JB, just making a general comment). If the team from one conference wins, it's because the winner is "battle tested" from all the hard fought competition more than any other conference. If they lose, then the narrative is just flipped around and it's suggested they just beat each other up. So which is it? Competition prepares you for the moment or competition drains you for the moment?

People can define Best Conference in a number of ways, and most do in a manner that supports the logic of their conference being the Best. Just go look at the Northeastern media and some national media today squawking about the overrated Big 12 and the fact the Big East was the best conference all year.

I said it in December and I finish the year saying it. The Big 12 was the most competitive conference top to bottom, not necessarily chocked full of great teams. There's really no team in the Big 12 that doesn't have a potential fatal flaw. Kansas got more out of a pipsqueak team with no depth than I've ever seen. There was a good chance it would bite them at some point. Our flaws were exposed back in November. TCU's flaws were evident all year when they would go through mysterious scoring lapses. Iowa St was waiting to explode at any moment, seemingly able to throw the ball in from 94 feet against us but not hit the broadside of a barn against anyone else.

The good news for Tang and crew (and unfortunately UT) is that there is no team in CBB this year who didn't or doesn't have a fatal flaw, so with the right roll they could end up with the Natty and the Big 12 could go 3 consecutive.

Just my opinion. Others may vary.

---

I don't think conference affiliation has any bearing on the tournament personally. The college basketball postseason is 100 percent about matchups. The teams best built to handle multiple kinds of matchups usually win, regardless of the conference they're from.

I always thought "the greatest Big 12 ever" narrative this year was bogus because I looked across the league and saw teams that were every bit as flawed as everyone else's. This tournament has pretty much confirmed that the Big 12, while a good and deep league, wasn't really anything special this season. And that's particularly true once you look at the seeding bump all of these teams making early exits got from being part of the Big 12.