BIG XII RECAP

Suddenly, Saturday’s game in Austin is for all the marbles-not just for half the marbles. With UT’s loss in Stillwater, the Longhorns dropped a full game in the REAL Standings to 13.5-2.5. They still hold a half game lead over KU, entirely on the basis that the championship game will be played on their home court. However, should the Road-savvy Hawks extend their away home record to 6-1, they will move to 14-2 in the REAL Standings, a full 1.5 games ahead of UT, with nothing but UC standing between them and the undisputed conference championship.

By UC, I don’t mean the University of Colorado-I mean Unexpected Complacency.

In other games, Tech managed its first Road kill of the season in Lincoln vs. the Jekyll and Huskers, and CU lost an at-risk game at k-state. ISU lost as projected to OU-but the projection would have been different at about the 1:10 mark of the second half. And A&M squeezed out an at-risk victory at Baylor.

Based on its efforts vs. KU Monday night (which led me, in the last RS Report to state, “If Okie St gets out to an early lead [vs. UT], it could be a 40 minute game”), it appears that the young and talented Cowboys are turning the corner, much like KU did post-Columbia. Fortunately, the Hawks got in and out of Stillwater before it happened. At any rate, OSU is now listed as a Second Tier team, rather than being hopelessly mired in the Pit of Oblivion. Won’t do a lot for them in the conference standings, but they could be a force to be reckoned with in Dallas.

THE REAL STANDINGS*

The REAL Standings, as of February 19, 2006:

1. 13.5-2.5

Texas
(10-2/No projected L’s/at risk game: at A&M)

2. 13-3

Kansas
(10-2/projected L at UT/at risk games: None)

3. 10.5-5.5

Oklahoma
(8-4/projected L at UT/at risk games: at Tech)

4. 9-7

Colorado
(7-5/projected L’s at KU, at NU/at risk games: none)

5. 8.5-7.5

Nebraska
(6-6/projected L’s at A&M/at risk game at MU)

6. 8-8

A&M
(6-6/projected L at Tech/at risk games: at Mizzou, vs. UT)

Texas Tech
(6-6/Projected L at Okie St/at risk games at Baylor, vs. OU)

8. 6.5-9.5

Iowa St
(4-8/projected L at CU/at risk game at Baylor)

9. 6-10

Okie St
(4-8/Projected L’s at ISU, OU)

10. 5-11

k-state
(5-7/ Projected L’s at OU, at NU, vs. UT, vs. KU)

Mizzou
(4-8/Projected L’s at CU, ISU/HAC games vs. A&M, vs. NU)

12. 3-13

Baylor
(2-10/Projected L’s at KU, Okie St/HAC games vs. ISU, vs. Tech)

GAMES TO WATCH

Big XII Games February 20-22, with IQ (Interest Quotient) are:

1. Oklahoma at Texas Tech (Mon. at 8p.m.)***1/2

OU did everything but lay two big eggs last week. Is it possible that the Big 12 has only two good teams?

2. Baylor at KU (Tue. at 7p.m.)*

This is almost the ultimate trap game for KU. A contest against the conference’s worst team smack dab in the middle of a game vs. an arch-rival and a game for the conference championship. Were the game at Waco, an upset might not be completely out of the question. However, the worst team in the conference is not going to take out the league’s best team on the Road. If the Hawks are looking ahead to Saturday-which would be understandable-this could be a game for 15-20 minutes, and the Hawks might fail to cover the spread.

3. A&M at Mizzou (Tue. at 7p.m.)**

Your assignment, Mr. Watkins, if you wish to accept it, is to make the Missouri Tiger basketball team give a damn for two and a half weeks. If you go O-fer, the Athletic Director will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This message will self delete within 10 seconds. Here’s hoping your career doesn’t.

4. Colorado at Nebraska (Wed. at 7p.m.)****

Not UT/KU by any means, but an extremely important game for both teams after their losses Saturday. CU can pick up a full game in the REAL Standings and virtually lock up a 10-6 record, a fourth place conference finish, and the likely NCAA berth that goes with it. NU can stay alive for those honors, but will also have to figure out how to win at A&M.

5. Texas at k-state (Wed. at 7p.m.)***1/2

Is it possible? Could UT be looking up at KU Thursday morning with a 12.5-3.5 REAL Standings record? Probably not. UT has too many players, and k-state does not have Okie St’s athletes. In fact, UT losing in Stillwater was k-state’s worst nightmare. Not likely that the Longhorns will be looking ahead after that debacle.

6. Okie St at Iowa St (Wed. at 8p.m.)***1/2

One of the more intriguing games of the season. I didn’t say important: I said “intriguing.” ISU will be desperate to dispel the foul taste of blowing a game that was in the bag in Norman. OSU will be rejuvenated after stomping the No. 6 ranked team in the country, and will see a light at the end of what has, thus far this season, been a long, dark tunnel-and it isn’t an oncoming train. A game sports psychologists would love.

Go Big Blue!

–Mark

*Texas, KU, and OU, the Tier One teams, are projected to win all of their home games, lose their road games vs. other Tier One teams, and to be “at risk” in road games vs. Tier Two teams.

The Tier Two teams are projected to win all home games with the exception of games vs. Tier One teams. They are projected to lose all road games vs. Tier One and Two teams. They are “at risk” against Tier One teams at home and on the road against the teams that have cast themselves into the Pit of Oblivion.

As for the teams in the Pit, each is projected to (a) lose every Road game; (b) lose every home game vs. the Tier One teams; (c) win every home game vs. each other; and (4) to have a Half-Assed Chance to win every home game vs. a Tier 2 team.

As always, teams can move up or down in status with meaningful road wins and embarrassing (or enough) home losses.

Premature you say?

UT has underperformed, especially in Oklahoma, and nobody has outpaced expecations like KU.

You can give Self the nod right now, and he deserves it.

The UT game is just around the Baylor corner. No, the players and coach can’t afford to look ahead or they might not cover the point spread Tuesday night.

But fans can afford to look ahead. That’s part of the fun of being a fan.

Dick Vitale has stated ad nauseum that UT has the best starting five in the country. (That’s the same Dick Vitale who, for some unknown reason, has been nominated for the basketball Hall of Fame-just for having a schtick. What a world we live in.)

Not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, however, even from a cartoon figure who only has 8-10 talking points in his entire repertoire in any game-most of which are about Duke or Roy Williams. After all, UT starts three McD AA’s (Buckman, Aldridge and Gibson), and has a fourth starter (P.J. Tucker) who might be better than any of them.

Closer to home, Kelvin Sampson has declared that UT has the best 5 players in the conference, but KU has the best nine.

Having seen more of both teams than most fans-or even most “experts”–here is my take on the two teams. Feel free to take in UT’s games at Okie St and k-state and compare notes.

Starter Breakdown

1. Kenton Paulino vs. Russell Robinson: Both are competent at running an offense, and neither makes an abundance of senseless turnovers. However, neither will invoke images of predecessors T.J. Ford or Aaron Miles in this regard. What Paulino can do is hit an open 3 pointer. What RR can do is wreak havoc defensively with both his foot and hand speed. IF RR puts his mind to it, Paulino will not get many open looks. Edge: Robinson. (Trade-ability Factor-i.e., would either coach trade his player for the other, leaving emotions and loyalty out of the equation: Push. Barnes can’t afford to lose Paulino’s shot to take pressure of Gibson.)

2. Daniel Gibson vs. Mario Chalmers: Gibson is a better scorer, although Mario has not been a slacker in that area recently. Gibson has an ultra-quick release and is better at knocking down threes off the dribble. Mario is faster and a better defender. (Not that Gibson is a slouch defensively.) Mario also has better instincts for making good things happen for his teammates–although, as a freshman, he occasionally gets carried away and makes a bonehead play. Edge: Push. (TF: Push.)

3. P.J. Tucker vs. Brandon Rush: Almost a meaningless comparison. They have entirely different roles. Tucker is a power player who cleans the boards, and, because he is a great finisher, gets a lot of garbage points. He is averaging 15.5-9.9 in league play. Rush is a perimeter player, a legitimate scorer, who also has a knack for running down rebounds. He is 15.9-7.1 in league play. Tucker is stronger. Rush is faster and a better shooter. Tucker is the ultimate competitor-a warrior. Rush is fast becoming a great competitor. Slight Edge: Tucker. (TF: Push.)

4. LaMarcus Aldridge vs. Julian Wright: Aldridge is a likely All-Conference pick. He’s in the running for AA honors. He will be a lottery pick if he decides to move on to the NBA at this season’s conclusion. He is shooting 50% from the field in Big 12 games, and averaging 14 points and 8 rebounds. He is seven footer with a sweet turn around shot from the baseline, and he is effective anywhere within 15 feet. He is not a hardnosed competitor, but doesn’t have to be at his size. He is an executer. And a damn good one. Which brings us to Dr. JW. He is one of two X-Factors in this game. He is not as big in either height or weight as Aldridge. Nor is he as accomplished a shooter. What he is is quicker, faster, more agile, quicker off his feet, and, most importantly, a creator. He makes those around him better a la Manning, Magic, Bird. Were he to decide to play four years of college ball, he would universally be acknowledged as being of that stature by Senior Night 2009. Slight Edge: Dr. JW. (TF: Push-but Barnes would think about it.)

5. Brad Buckman vs. Sasha Kaun: Buckman is an accomplished inside player. When Aldridge and Tucker were out last year, Buckman put the team on his back and carried it with some Collison-like efforts. He can finish, knock down an occasional 15-18 footer, and is an excellent pressure free throw shooter. If there is a knock against him, it is that he will defer to Tucker and Aldridge. Sasha is trying to become Buckman, only bigger, and should be there in two years. Edge: Buckman. (TF: Edge, Buckman.)

Bench

1. Backcourt: Freshman A.J. Abrams vs. Senior JHawk: Slight edge to Hawk because he is older. Neither team would be markedly improved or weakened if these two traded uniforms.

2. Frontcourt: Mike Williams/Connor Atchley vs. Darnell Jackson/C.J. Giles/Christian Moody: This is the most glaring difference personnel-wise in the two teams. If these players are on the court with the game on the line, mail in a KU victory. Williams is a McDonald’s AA, and he has the body of a prototypical power forward. Thus far in his career, he has played like Ronald McDonald. As for Atchley: think Matt Kleinmann. Moody is Moody, which is still better than Atchley. Jackson is solid, though, like Kaun, not much of a finisher. Neither is C.J., yet he is the other X-Factor in this game: UT has not faced a defensive force inside like C.J. when he is motivated-as he usually is for big-time competition. He is the Dominic Hasek of college basketball. He is the Dominator. He can block and alter Tucker shots, Buckman shots, even Aldridge shots. And Paulino and Gibson can fuhgeddaboutit. If C.J. plays 20-25 minutes, UT’s inside advantage will be kept under control to an extent that will allow KU’s perimeter game to prevail. Edge: KU. (TF: Guess.)

Other Factors

1. Coaching: Coaching will not decide this game. Neither guy is a dummy. Both have put together hellacious collections of talent. Talent will tell.

2. Experience: Big edge: Texas. They start two seniors and a junior. No freshmen. KU starts three freshmen and two sophs. UT’s players have all played in big games, including ruining Okie St’s Senior Night last year on College Game Day, playing in the NCAA, and downing Memphis this year in Memphis. KU has Moody.

3. Home court: Obviously, this edge goes to Texas. And anyone who has ever read a REAL Standings Report knows how much emphasis I place on the home court. KU’s nucleus has never been in a situation like they will see Saturday, with the possible exception of the Mizzou game. Unless the Hawks take an early lead and just take the crowd out of the game, it will be a frenzied environment. When the Erwin Center is packed-which admittedly is rare-it is every bit as loud as Allen Fieldhouse. However, the Jayhawks have shown no inclination thus far to be adversely affected by the Road experience. Where the Home Court will make a difference is in keeping UT’s energy level up in the final moments of the game when they would otherwise be worn down by KU’s superior depth and athleticism.

4. Attitude: KU is relentless. Especially on defense. UT has more of a workmanlike attitude-that they will play forty minutes of basketball and expect the cream to rise to the top. This approach, however, left UT on the short end of the stick when the OU game came down to a gut check. Edge: KU.

Overall Assessment

If this game were on a truly neutral court, I would favor KU slightly, because the Hawks have more speed in every matchup other than Kaun/Buckman, and have more depth and athleticism. With the home court and an edge in big game experience, UT should be favored THIS time around. But not by much.

If the Hawks jump out to an early lead, it could be a long day for UT.

Actually, because of the Jayhawks’ relentless pressure offensively and defensively, it will be a long day for UT, win or lose no matter who takes the early lead.

If the Hawks keep this one close for 35 minutes, they will have the fresher legs down the stretch, and that could be the difference.

–Mark