Haters, wanna challenge our Conference?
-
@BeddieKU23 are you saying coach owes you a national championship?
-
@HighEliteMajor said:
National titles since 1990? We know the big names - Duke 5, UConn 4, UK 3, UNC 3.
Glad you brought these up.
I’ve been needing a Memory Hole Pump Out…
Duke 5: one with an obviously hopelessly impossible without Deep Basketball forces long stack that even Bo Ryan called Rent-a-players; that leaves 4; one with the pioneering introduction of XTReme Cheap Shotting vs. Butler in which refs appeared to completely favor Dook by not so much allowing the cheap shotting but appearing to enable it; that leaves 3 and one of those had a player that was reputedly playing for expensive jewelry; that leaves 2 and I bet anyone with a better memory than mine can whittle away at least one, or maybe e both of the remaining “championships.” Next.
UConn 4: Calhoun won the last two having to quit after each one and hide behind cardiac problems to avoid reputed recruiting death penalties; that leaves 2 and both of those reputedly involved rosters that never earned a sheep skin and heavy recruiting investigations; that leaves zero. Next.
UK 3: Oh, shit, why even both beating this corrupt dead, horse. ZERO. Next.
UNC: Como se dice Easygate? It is not clear that UNC would have even been able to field a team some of those seasons had they had to go to class and take real tests. ZERO. Next.
These are not the big names any more.
These are the FAKE big names.
These are recent equivalent to the Rupp Kentucky point shaving teams.
They aren’t even relevant to talking about D1 basketball really.
They have just been AAU teams on Steroids allowed to play long exhibition seasons with D1 teams.
There is no more similarity regarding the apparent “rules of the game” between the recent title stealing AAU on Steroid teams–Duke, UConn, UK and UNC–have been playing under and KU than saying KU and them wear shorts and shoot at ten foot baskets on the same size floor. Similarities stop there and everyone knows it, or has not been “woke.”
Next.
-
@HighEliteMajor Sad, but true. In fact, the B12’s performance is even more distressing than that. As you note, the ACC, Big East, SEC and Pac 12 all have multiple titles since 1990 (and each with multiple teams winning). 5 teams have more titles than the entire B12 conference during that span - the 4 you note plus Florida. The lowly B10 matches us with just one national title during that time frame. However, in contrast to the B12, where KU is the ONLY team that has reached a championship game during that time, the B10 had 6 runner-ups in addition to the one titleist - with 5 different teams - Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana, Illinois and Ohio State.
The B12 is a VERY solid conference from top to bottom - the worst teams in the B12 this year are better than the bottom teams in other conferences. And, that has arguably been true for the past couple of years (esp. now with the influx of coaching talent). But we don’t come close to matching the top tier talent of the other power conferences year in and year out.
The argument that the tournament is a crap-shoot is a cop-out excuse. Over 25+ years, there is a lot of data and the randomness factor falls away. Sure, the very best team doesn’t win every year - but one of the very best does with rare exception (perhaps excluding the 2 recent UConn champs and maybe Arizona in '97 (but they had real NBA talent).
The bottom line is that of the power conferences, the B12 has the fewest titles (tied), the worst W-L record (by far), the fewest different teams in the title game and Final Four. Performance has been especially poor over the past decade (last year was one of the best in many years). It’s not hating - but there is no reason to sugar coat it either. Unless and until the conference wins the big one, and with someone other than just KU (fine with that ONLY if they don’t beat us to get there), the overrated label will stick…
-
@DCHawker said:
The bottom line is that of the power conferences, the B12 has the fewest titles (tied), the worst W-L record (by far), the fewest different teams in the title game and Final Four. Performance has been especially poor over the past decade (last year was one of the best in many years).
But this only makes sense, since the B12 appears to face the most asymmetry in seeding and whistles every season. It would only make sense for the B12 to do better than it has done, if it faced no apparent asymmetry in seeding and whistles.
I really don’t think this is rocket science.
It keeps going on year and after year.
It happens whether the B12 has great coaches, and lots of talent, or only good coaches and less talent.
Don’t you see? If things were not being driven by entertainment values and there were apparent seeding and whistle symmetry, we would expect the B12 to do at least as well as the other conferences.
I just don’t see any other logical explanation for the phenomenon.
You don’t seriously think the B12 has an inferiority complex, or some kind of chaotic “strange tendency” that makes them under perform relatively to the other power conferences, do you?
I mean, think about it. All of the B12 teams recruit all over the country, same as the other Power Five conference programs do. All the top programs in all the Power Five Conferences get players from all over the country. There would be no reason for the recurring phenomenon of the B12 doing worse that the other conferences over a long period if seeding and whistles were symmetric. Its not like it used to be when teams depended heavily on local talent that the population concentrations favored teams in big cities and densely populated regions. Self and staff can go out recruiting on a private jet every day anywhere in the country. Now they don’t even have to bother with finding the top talent because the top 100 is sorted out for them every season. They are televised everywhere all the time, so there is no huge edge there either in terms of making your brand known.
It just has to be something like seeding and whistle asymmetry, Petroshoeco-Agency dynamics, or something else as yet unknown, that is biasing the outcomes as they are. Its been going on too long to be random. And the Big 12 has had too many runs of fine coaches and good talent for the tendency of the outcomes observed to occur.
Something appears to be biasing the outcomes.
-
@jaybate-1.0 By your reasoning, the Atlanta Braves must have been the victims of assymetric umpiring during their run of Division titles with a woeful record in the post-season and only 1 WS championship.
Statistical aberrations occur.
-
@jaybate-1.0 There has been asymmetry in seeding - B12 teams apparently have routinely been over-seeded - the conference has consistently under-performed its seed expectations. The selection committee appears to have bought in to the regular season conference rankings and rewarded B12 teams with high seeds - which, disappointingly, they fail to live up to.
Perhaps there is a simpler explanation for the bias - lack of top tier and depth of talent. Just one data point, but I believe there have been just 4 B12 players that have made an all-NBA team over the past decade (that includes 1st, 2nd and 3rd team) - Durant, Griffin, Aldridge and Pierce (and the latter was about a decade ago). Maybe Wiggs, Embid and Jackson can change that, but hasn’t happened yet. UK has at least 5 itself. But that suggests that Self at least has done a lot more with lesser talent - although still the best breadth and depth of talent in the B12 - I believe KU has the 4th most 1st round draft choices over the past several years.
-
@DCHawker I appreciate your effort, but wouldnt your “explanation” require a vastly greater array of assumptions and statistical improbabilities and complexity as precondition than my hypothesis of simple entertainment values driving seeding and whistle asymmetry against B12 team’s chances for success? My hypothesis is so very simple . and elegant. Yours requires such improbable underlying randomness on a consistent basis producing a recurrent pattern over a long period! It’s just hard for me to believe that randomness in the face of such variation and.complexity can produce the bias of outcomes you attribute to the B12.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Actually, his explanation is very simple and very elegant. It is a given that a disproportionate number of basketball players come from urban centers where the AAU programs, public and private school competitiveness, and media exposure tend to reinforce the desirability of conferences NOT located in the hinterlands.
In other words, it is freakin’ hard to get kids who grew up in a city to move to the farm belt!
-
@mayjay you sound like Walton, KU is plodding farmers.
-
@jaybate-1.0 said:
@DCHawker I appreciate your effort, but wouldnt your “explanation” require a vastly greater array of assumptions and statistical improbabilities and complexity as precondition than my hypothesis of simple entertainment values driving seeding and whistle asymmetry against B12 team’s chances for success? My hypothesis is so very simple . and elegant. Yours requires such improbable underlying randomness on a consistent basis producing a recurrent pattern over a long period! It’s just hard for me to believe that randomness in the face of such variation and.complexity can produce the bias of outcomes you attribute to the B12.
Seems that we’ve been down this path before…
An “elegant” hypotheses supported by… nada, zip, zilch - with another hypothesis supported by at least a modicum of facts. You’ve challenged me in the past - will do the same to you. Analyze the facts - give some data to support your hypothesis - anything… Foul discrepancies in games that B12 teams have lost in the tournament. Shoeco comparisons in those games. TV market size comparisons of the two teams… anything. I bet it is out there - go get it!!!
-
I am not convinced of a vast conspiracy to screw the Big 12. Seemed to me that we have had many well paved paths that we’ve managed to screw up.
I would also say, generally, that the best players do not come for the hard streets of the inner city. That is, most of these kids are at prep schools and have already ventured away from their home towns. Different age right now.
Really, though, any efforts to explain catastrophic failures, or to make excuses for a long term epidemic is a losing proposition.
-
I don’t root for any conference teams unless it helps KU. I spend two months hoping Baylor loses every game, and now I’m supposed to root for them so i can brag to my buddies about the Big 12? No thanks.
-
@HighEliteMajor And Just like I mentioned BEFORE when you responded, I said responding to your reasonable rate. – I stated what is a reasonable rate? - You respond since 1990. and give your schools, as I stated once about every five years should/would be reasonable a it’s really hard other then DUKE which you mentioned with five U con - -4 that’s like one every not even one every five - -UK only 3 - -Unc only 3 in that span that’s not even really close to one in every five - -so just like I said. so that point is pretty invalid - - that’s not even one every five year period - -It is just not that easy, cause your mentioning National titles, hell even Duke not averaging one in every five years like I mentioned. So then with me saying one in every five, evidentally you not liking that rate - -but yet all the schools all the conferences you stated not even averaging one in every five National titles since 1990- -what is a reasonable rate to you? - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
2013 NCAA tournament match ups eliminate complete tournament engineering to me. Yes, we played North Carolina who was an 8 seed. Villanova was the 9 seed and Kansas and Villanova did not have a lot of history together, especially compared to 2 other 9 seeds, Missouri and Wichita St. Why would the NCAA avoid a potential KU-Missouri match up during Missouri’s first year out of the Big 12? Why would they actively avoid a WSU game people have wanted to see for awhile?
Put either one of those two teams as a 9 seed against UNC and we were guaranteed a highly publicized 2nd round game no matter what instead of a 50/50 shot at one.
-
First, kinda sensy, eh? You’re wheeling out the old “you got nothing” cliche, when if I had nothing, you would have no reason to respond. Right? I even concede you have “something.” It just appears too implausible for me to be persuaded.
Second, you appear upset that I called into question the meaning of the very thing you appeared to feel quite justified in thinking; that the B12 has underperformed and it’s its own fault. You appear to imply it could have done better, but some how failed.
right?But then here I came along suggesting maybe it did about the way it would be expected given the topo of the playing field. Grrrrrrrr. Dissonance. Double grrrrrrrrrr.
Then the cliche “you got nuthin’.”
I can see why you might get annoyed. It must have felt pretty good to judge the B12 leaders and coaches and players as just not having been up to your sense of snuff.
right? You hated to say it, but they just have been significantly worse than the 4 other conferences that you had to do your duty, like you had to with me having nothing, right?But like I said; then I unintentionally turned your explanation upside down. What if the Big 12 folks did good, but the playing field were a leeeeeeetle unlevel?
Then boom! “You got nuthin’, bate 1.0.” Ooooh the predictability of it gives me goose bumps.
Third, you also give me some weird feelings; like you appear to be rejecting my hypothesis to distract from the apparent inelegance and apparent implausibility of your “explanation”. Your “explanation” seems vaguely like: an elephant can hang from a daisy; i.e., a conference of highly paid professionals can underperform 4 others over a long period on a level playing field.
Creative and metaphysically possible, I grant you, but does it really elegantly, plausibly, validly and with high probability explain why one of five power conferences would violate the statistical tendency of a random walk of conference performance in the long run without biasing in the context? Hmmmmm, I just can’t quite buy your explanation as a fitting explanation. But I am magnanimous by comparison: You GOT SUMTHIN’. 
Nevertheless, I apologize for annoying you.
Have a nice day and we’ll find a fitting answer to the mystery of the under performing conference sooner or later.
Rock Chalk!
-
I do NOT hypothesize complete tournament engineering.
I hypothesize legal partial tournament engineering based on legal entertainment values.
Absolutely illegal conspiracy free.
@Blown recently posted an interesting Mick Cronin take. It appeared reminiscient of our former KU STAFFER now at maybe SIU?
-
Actually it doesn’t appear to me to be.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 said:
@mayjay you sound like Walton, KU is plodding farmers.
Not my impression after living there, but most of the country hasn’t lived there. Why would urban kids growing into adulthood and hoping for excitement want to move to Ames (school ranking lower than over 2,000 other schools out of 2,400 rated for diversity), Waco (to a restrictive religious school, no less), Manhattan (let’s drive to Junction City!), Lubbock (middle of nowhere, someone said?), Morgantown (coal country), and “Stoollwater”? TCU at least has Fort Worth/Dallas to offer, and KU has Lawrence with KC nearby. Norman is near O City, which might be fun to a bb player wanting to follow the NBA. But what else besides tornadoes? Austin offers the fun of living in a capital city in a football crazed state that is busy trying to beat Kansas and most of the South in a race backwards to the past.
Drought, dust, country music, flat land… In the entire geography encompassed by the Big 12, there are two NFL teams, two baseball teams, and two NBA teams within an hours driving time of any of the 10 campuses (3 if you include San Antonio at 80 miles from UT). Compare that with the urban attractions of the Big 10, Big East, Pac 12 or whatever the hell it is by now, or even the ACC.
Kids who grow up in the Midwest may implicitly recognize the region’s attractiveness, but it is not always apparent to visitors craving the type of things they grew up around in big cities. So, when coaches recruit well in the Big 12, they are overcoming huge assumptions kids can bring with them.
I love Big 12 country, but I grew up there.
-
@HighEliteMajor said:
That is, most of these kids are at prep schools and have already ventured away from their home towns. Different age right now.
True, but living as a 16-19 yr old at a prep school is vastly different from looking at up to 4 years as an adult in relative isolation, culturally and geographically.
-
IMO Isn’t the thread question “Who has the strongest conference?” And you could answer that based on either one season, or over multiple seasons (if multiple, how many years? 5? 10? 27?) I would like to know that out of curiosity and KU/B12 pride. Then the $64,000 question is "How do we DEFINE the “strongest conference?” NCs? FFs? SW16s? Tourney Bids? Season’s ending mix of Final Rankings, BPI, RPI, SOS, SOR, yadda, yadda, yadda? Note: NC and FF appearances alone do not a strongest conference make!
No surprise that there are many, many statistical (and dare I say asymmetry?) factors that would reveal the answer(s), and it makes my head spin just thinking about it. I’m not a pro at this, but I still think that B12 is the strongest, and has been one of the strongest conferences overall for enough years now to shut most haters up. Rock Chalk!!
-
@mayjay Of course, there’s always a difference. The point is that now, kids live many times far away from their homes. Gone are days when the good NYC kids go to St. Johns. It’s a different age, where an east coast kid may play HS ball in Vegas. And his mom (dad of course probably isn’t around) stays back at home working, and the kid lives with another family.
By this theory, all of the colleges in big cities should dominate. But, of course, they don’t.
If you get a top coach, you can get players. Doesn’t much matter where he goes, within reason.
All of these excuses to explain the limited issue of why the Big 12 fails to achieve in March.
Referees, tourney fixing, geography, the grassy knoll.
Look at the draw KU got in the 2010 NCAA Tournament. or in the 2011 NCAA Tournament. Could you ask for anything better?
Duke and UConn took care of business. We make excuses.
-
@HighEliteMajor I was adressing a limited topic, which was recruiting barriers as a possible reason for the phenomenon raised by someone else of the Big 12 as a whole not producing more NBA stars, not making excuses for anything. You keep urging UConn and Duke as your guiding stars. I would still rather be a Jayhawk.
-
I didn’t want to post to this old topic that is dragged out every year. Yet I can’t resist.
SEC—Who has won a championship besides UK and Florida?
ACC—Who has won a championship besides UNC and Duke?
Pac—Who has won a championship besides UCLA?
Big 10—Who has won a championship besides Indiana?
Big 12 —Who has won a championship besides KU?
Now I know some other teams have won in some of these conferences. Yet that isn’t the point. No conference has really dominated the national championship game. Well except maybe the old Big East.
The real argument in this topic that everybody is dancing around except @HighEliteMajor. Is why hasn’t KU won more National championships.
-
@HighEliteMajor the grassy knoll… Lmfao
-
@jaybate-1.0 the Russians have been hacking the tourney since the Cold War.
-
I’m sure it is all tied together somehow with the space time continuum, Amelia Earhart, the moon landing, and the color of undies I select to wear on tournament game days
-
@cragarhawk I assume the last item is variable, depending both on your initial choice and on the progress of the game.
-
@mayjay usually don’t change them mid game… but I’d be willing to try that out if everyone thinks it may help. Or hell. I’d even go commando for wins
-
@cragarhawk We will take your word for it, but you being willing to do that will definitely help counteract that Debie Downer accusation!
-
Bottom line here all conspiracy theories… Cough bu(!$#!T aside. Is whether you value regular season success over post season success. The lil10 is constantly heralded as the top or one of the top conferences nearly every year. Alot of noncon early season wins. Upper RPI teams. And trading blows throughout a grueling round robin conference schedule. If you value all of that then you probably believe the numbers on paper and the idea that it’s the best. I don’t see anyone arguing that fact that the conference as a whole underperforms in the tourney. For whatever the reason is. If you value March success though. You don’t hold the conference in a high regard. And whether anyone really wants to admit it or not or even cares… The national perception will definitely be decided in the madness. No question
-
So you’re saying that the SEC is a tougher conference than the Big 12?
-
@mayjay ah. The old “deb downer” thing huh… lol. I guess I’ll take that
. I call it being realistic. But I have found it’s easier to label a realistic individual a negative one than to admit that some (not all) of the things they say are correct.
-
@DoubleDD I don’t think I said that. How about you? What’s your perception? Do you think what I said means I believe the SEC is better?
-
Maybe the issue should not be worded as “best” conference since there are so few finalists. Maybe a better description should be that the conference, as a whole, is the toughest, top to bottom, to play in during the regular season.
“Best” implies predictability from the rankings.
“Toughest” just means it is a bitch to go through.
-
Its was an honest question. I wasn’t trying to do some slight of hand. You made the comment that the tournament is what decides what a conference is.
Maybe it’s true but I have a hard time accepting that. As if UK were to win the championship, the SEC would garner another feather in the cap.
That is why I loath this topic. Was the Pac the best conference in the nation, when UCLA was winning all those Championships?
You see where I’m going with this?
-
@mayjay ppl used to talk about the Big10 as the kinda what I think you’re saying. The toughest to navigate. Back when it had the round robin format that we have now. In that respect I’d have to think this conference is very possibly the toughest.
-
The real issue, like you said @HighEliteMajor, is Self’s performance in the tournament. Outside of 2014, you really cant say injuries are the reason. For some reason, like in 2010 and 2011, Self’s teams lose a game where they look nothing like how they played during the season. Turnovers are also an issue, such as last year against Nova (six more than they did) and at the end of the game against Michigan. I dont really think much about the 2014 and 2015 teams because those teams were very young and had a horde of issues, so I normally focus on Self’s experienced teams.
To anyone who has actually WATCHED the games, it is clear that the refs have not caused a single KU loss in the tournament - there have always been things that our guys could have done better.
At times, I think Jaybate doesnt even watch the non KU tournament games or else he would see that, oddly enough, sometimes teams just play better than a higher seeded team. Take UConn in 2014, for example. I rewatched segments from their run and was reminded at how smart they played and how well they shot the ball. Did the refs or tournament committee rig the rims so that UConn could shoot better? No.
Nova is also another great example of a team playing great defense and making good decisions. Couple those with hot shooting and you have a title contender. How did the refs help Nova shoot well? The obvious (and correct) answer is: they didnt. They just played better than the other six teams they played.
Now, Jaybate brings up locations, teams and seedings. Lets take a quick look at UConn. 10 seed St. Joes, 2 seed Nova, 3 seed Iowa State, 4 seed Michigan State (which by the way was a fully healthy team at the end of the year and many thought they were much better than a 4), 1 overall seed Florida, and 8 seed Kentucky, a team with multiple 1st round picks that finally adjusted to D1 ball. Thats absolutely brutal.
Now Nova. 15 seed UNC Asheville, 7 seed Iowa (a team that had been in the top ten for a portion of the season), 3 seed Miami (another top ten team), 1 overall seed Kansas (ranked number one at the start of the tourney), 2 seed OU, and 1 seed UNC. So, Nova had to beat three teams that had been ranked number one at some point in the year - THREE!! Again, that’s a brutal path to the title.
Hope that puts everything in perspective - locations dont matter, seedings dont matter and the refs dont matter. Its all about how you play.
-
@DoubleDD ya I get it. But I didn’t say my perception was that that makes the SEC better. And I’m not asking you to have that perception either. I’m saying the national perspective will come from March success. One team winning the championship in my mind doesn’t get that done. In the same manner that if KU wins the NC this year but no other team say makes it past the first weekend. I’m not gonna believe the big12 is the best conference. Some are talking about success over an extended period. I don’t think it’s a bad barometer. If you look at total FF’s and total NC’s in say the last 15 years or 20 years or you name it. I think you could make a case that the SEC has been as good or better in March definitely. ACC has been… without question. Big east… without question. But again. If you aren’t a person who values tourney success over other stats and things. Then that part isn’t what matters to you. And isnt going to change your perception
-
@cragarhawk I think the various analyticals only measure that, too. But the media totals 'em all up and changes it to “best” which leads to these threads for way toooooo much fun.
Most successful is the term I suggest for deciding who does best in the tournament. Bill Walton doesn’t care though, as to him the Pac will always be the “conference of champions.”
-
@mayjay I guess it’s okay to expect him to be a lil biased. I mean I’m KU biased. There’s no question. If I was an official I’d be labeled the biggest KU Homer in history… Lol.
-
I can respect that. Yet I pose the question. What if your league has a lot of good teams just not great, say versus a league that has 2 or 3 great teams and the rest of the league sucks?
You mention the ACC as I did too. Yet outside of Duke and UNC who is great and who is good. Now remember I’m talking before conference realignment. Yes the ACC has had a few one hit wonders. Wake Forest and Maryland. Yet besides a few miracles when the star line up right. The ACC used to be just Duke and UNC. Again I know conference realignment has changed some previous thoughts when it come to this topic.
-
@DoubleDD I think if “you name the conference” has alot of good teams. That will show in the post season in most cases. Maybe not into the last weekend. Cause that does largely take a great team. I mean I’d say right now if I’m objectively grading the BIG12. I’m saying 1 obvious great team. 4 fairly equally good teams. And then 5 really not very good teams. Although I actually give TTU a lil advantage over the other 4. Now having said that. Depending on matchups etc. There’s 4 teams in the conference that I think possibly could make a deep run. Possibly. But not probably. And I doubt more than 1 or 2 will. At this moment I can say about the same thing for the ACC. Except that I think they have more quality teams. But also have alot more teams period. So that makes a difference also.
-
And even if the Ruskies haven’t been hacking the tourney, the MSM would disseminate fake news from the Deep State that they were, right?
-
Good point. My only rebuttal is that a good team that makes the tournament will face a good team. I know in KU land nothing short of a final four means a failed season. Yet I’m starting to believe it takes a pretty special team to make it to that final weekend.
A good team versus a good team is a 50/50 chance. Pounding on that point a little further is that a lot of if not most of the time a good team from a power conference is really playing a true road game As the fans cheer for the team from a lesser conference.
Something to think about anyways.
-
@DoubleDD there’s no question it takes a special team to make that run. I mean just use KU as your reasoning on that. 13 straight conference titles. And in that time 1 NC. 1 runner up. 2 FF’s. Now. If youre on the outside looking in that doesn’t sound too bad. But those of us who have followed all along as KU diehards or atleast some of us… think it could be better. 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016. Unfortunately we’ve just had alot of special teams that didnt get that far. To this day I’m waiting to wake up one morning from the nightmare that is the fact that Sherron and the 2010 hawks didn’t win the NC. I would’ve bet about anything on that team. And Sherrons will to not be defeated. And some other years that were just plain way too early exits. Idk what the reason is. Is it luck? Or lack there of? Is it that we don’t have a formidable rival in our conference or two… that also frequently make deep runs… idk. Personally I think if Coach stays here awhile the numbers will improve. Cause coaches grow and improve over time as well and Self has shown us he’s that guy.
And also you are spot on about the road game thing. No question. I was actually in Omaha when Mizzou went down to Norfolk state in 2012 as the 2 seed. Whole building was against them. It was good time
-
@et al
Hypothesis: Conference post season performance has been largely explained by asymmetry in OAD and 5-star stacking, seeding asymmetry, and whistle asymmetry.
Boom!
Outta da park!.
Frozen hypothetical rope!!
-
Who believes Cal and Coach K would equal Self’s record with this KU roster, if they were coaching it?
Any one that does I’ve got diamond mines under STRONG HALL to make you a deal on.
-
Nothing wrong with the B12 POST SEASON record the last ten years that several long and medium stacks plus some seeding and whistle asymmetry wouldn’t cure.
Any one doubt that and I ve got some MSM news about Trump that’s real to sell you!
Howling!!!
-
@jaybate-1.0 said:
Who believes Cal and Coach K would equal Self’s record with this KU roster, if they were coaching it?
Any one that does I’ve got diamond mines under STRONG HALL to make you a deal on.
This right here.
Every season I look at the roster and I honestly make a prediction based on many years of watching basketball. (I’ve been a KU fan sine 1986 when I was 12.) Almost every season coach Self he has me raising my expectations around this time. It’s his ability to maximize the “talent” the team has. Then when the tournament comes the team almost always meet the expectations I had in preseason. Of course then you hear the media and fans say “what is wrong with Kansas?”. Why do they underachieve in the tournament? Again Self MAXIMIZES our talent. Seriously would coach K or Cal roll into an NCAA tournament with a Brady Morningstar or Tyrel Reed STARTING? If they did the media would cut them slack and say its a down year for them. Currently Duke has NINE McDonald’s All Americans on their roster…NINE! If Duke makes a run to the final four the media will make a huge deal that K is the best ever. If they don’t make it you wont hear much when in reality it would be an epic failure. Self’s regular season titles at all conferences he has coached in proves what my point is, that he maximizes the talent he has. Now if he could somehow land recruiting classes similar to Duke and UK…
-
@jaybate-1.0 said:
Who believes Cal and Coach K would equal Self’s record with this KU roster, if they were coaching it?
Any one that does I’ve got diamond mines under STRONG HALL to make you a deal on.
I do think Coach K could. Definitely not this year’s Coach K that was dealing with his own personal health issues, but a Coach K that wasn’t distracted by any health issues I think would have a decent shot at equaling a 27-3 mark through 30 games. I don’t think the losses would necessarily be the same, but I think a healthy Coach K would have a shot at a 27-3 record with KU’s roster and schedule this year.
Not a chance with Cal. UK has a more talented roster top to bottom, a softer schedule than KU has had and has still lost 5 games this year.
