Historic deficiency? Top to bottom it's been a great league. At the top, it's only Kansas.
I'm not about to get in another argument with you concerning the Big 12, or 10, or 9. Whatever the hell it is now. You'll pull some Berlin, some Hegel, some Nietzsche, some Descartes, some Plato out on my ass. But you're right, at the top it's only Kansas. As it has always been and always will be.
And that's just one reason why, in my opinion, the RPI never tells the entire story. I don't place much stock in it for individual teams, nor do I place much stock in it for conferences.
Maybe your ass is still chapped, though, from the last three KU-UNC matchups, and this chapping is influencing your assessment of the BigXII (in some ridiculous manner, since it is a BigXII team that has owned your Tar Heels in recent history).
I laughed so hardlol:
But for real, congrats on another win in the conference. Just lose some here and there so UK stays ahead in the overall wins category![]()
RPI certainly does not tell the whole story. It is a piece of evidence, that is all. The #1 team in the RPI is rarely the best team in the nation; the #1 conference in the RPI is rarely the best conference in the nation. However, I do object to someone being able to say that a team that is #1 in the RPI (or ranked 1-5) over a ten year period is historically deficient; in the same vein, I object to your assertion that the BigXII is historically deficient. The BigXII, top to bottom, is a great conference. Is it the best conference top to bottom? No. Is it the best conference? No. Is it "historically deficient"? No.
Maybe your ass is still chapped, though, from the last three KU-UNC matchups, and this chapping is influencing your assessment of the BigXII (in some ridiculous manner, since it is a BigXII team that has owned your Tar Heels in recent history).