Kansas fans
- Thread starter cyups2323
- Start date
Look...you are the one always talking about how great Kansas is.
2014-#2 seed, lost in 2nd round to #10 seed-BAD POST SEASON RESULTS
2013-#1 seed, lost in 3rd round to #4 seed-BAD POST SEASON RESULTS
2012-GOOD POST SEASON
2011-#1 seed, lost in 4th round to #11 seed-BAD POST SEASON RESULTS
2010-#1 seed, lost in 2nd round to #9 seed-BAD POST SEASON RESULTS
2009-GOOD POST SEASON
2008-GOOD POST SEASON
2007-#1 seed, lost in 4th round to #2 seed
2006-lost in 1st round to #13 seed-BAD POST SEASON RESULTS
2005-lost in 1st round to #14 seed-BAD POST SEASON RESULTS
That is 6 times in the last 10 years where I feel that a school of Kansas's reputation had bad post season results. We are not talking about an up and coming school losing like that. We are talking about KANSAS. Arguably one of the top 5 programs in all of college basketball. Losing to 10 seeds and 9 seeds and 11 seeds. And as a member of the Big 12, Iowa State depends on Kansas doing well in the post season. We are trying to gain a fraction of the good reputation that Kansas has. Part of that is by doing what we are currently doing (having good to very good seasons and playing well in the NCAA) and part of that depends on the other members of the conference doing well in the post season. Kansas is failing at that right now.
But if you are happy with how Kansas does, that's great. After all, you did manage to beat Iowa State last night.
Last year it was Iowa State without Georges Niang and Baylor with Scott Drew that carried the league. Texas crapped their pants, Oklahoma crapped their pants, Kansas crapped their pants.
"having good to very good seasons and playing well in the NCAA". Go compare what you called good to very good seasons and playing well in the ncaa tourney for ISU to what you call failed seasons for Kansas. Getting 3rd in the conference, being a #10 or #8 seed and losing in the second game is technically "playing to seed" but that isn't a good to very good season playing well in the ncaa tourney. Like I said, just a different perspective.
Because if it's not then they just look like petty bickerers for griping about it.
it hurts the big 12 reputation when their best team plays like **** in post season.
Feel free to leave, man up and pound your chest on your own board, if things are to offensive to you.
Since the inception of the Big 12, KU has been to 4 Final Fours and the rest of the conference combined has been to 3. But from your warped point of view, it is KU's postseason performance that is embarrassing.
Under Self, KU has been made it to the tournament every season (11 times). They have made to the elite eight 5 times, the final four twice, the championship game twice, and have been national champs once. That's playing like ****? Four times, KU has lost in the first weekend. Would you have more regard for KU if instead of losing in the 1st or 2nd round they had poor seasons and didn't even make the tournament?
Let's say team A wins their conference, earns a #2 seed in the tournament, and then has a disappointing loss in the 2nd round to a 7 seed. Let's say team B finishes 4th in their league, earns a #10 seed, and loses in the 2nd round to the #2 seed. Overall, has Team A or Team B had the better season? Obviously, it is team A. The lower you are seeded, the easier it is to play to your seed.
Under Self, KU has had two #4 seeds, two #3 seeds, two #2 seeds and five #1 seeds. Based on this alone, the expectations of the selection committee was that KU should have reached at least five Final Fours (actual = 2), seven Elite Eights (actual = 5), and eleven Sweet Sixteens (actual = 7). The expectations have been very high based on KU's regular season performances. Unfortunately for KU and reputation of the B12, KU has not lived up overall to the expectations that they created for themselves based on their regular season performances.
If you feel like you are being picked on or just can't handle the truth, feel free to crawl back to phog.net where you'll probably find an audience that is more receptive to your message.
You just don't get it. There is a difference between a tourney on paper and a tourney on a basketball court. If you think that all seeds should be expected to play to seed even though it has literally never happened in the history of the sport means you need to step away from the stat book and watch some basketball. You can keep beating this drum but you'll get nowhere. How disappointing to only make five Elite Eights instead of seven. By your metrics there is not one team in the sport that has had a good year every year for the last 11 years. By your logic, sucking so bad during the year that you get a #8 seed then losing "to seed" against a #1 seed is a BETTER season than gaining a #1 seed and losing in the Sweet Sixteen or Round of 32. Gotcha. I'd rather be a team that fails to live up to high expectations than a team no one expects anything out of.
So it's come to basing conversations on facts and logic? Oh horrors, go back to the KU boards if you wanna rely on KU "magic".
Face, KU under performs in the tournament based on seeding(potential).
Doesn't make KU a bad teachers great, a true blue blood, just questionable in crunch time tournament play.
Relax, the Sun will come up tomorrow and you'll still be in first place.
Trust me, when the dance starts all true B12 fans wanna see KU play to their potential, but......
Yeah, if a team plays 10 games where they are a 70% favorite in each game, the team shouldn't be expected to win all 10 games, even though they would be favored in each, individual game. In the tournament it is just multiplied. Most computer predictors give #1 seeds less than a 50% chance to make it to the Final 4. The odds-on favorite would be the field.
Good win for KU last night tuco.
The problem with your crude analysis is that #1 seed aren't actually expected to make it to the Final Four. They are expected to win 3.38 games, because based on historic averages, this is what #1 seeds have done. Bill Self's performance against seed expectations (PASE) isn't good but isn't bad either. Based on the seeding of his teams, he has won almost exactly the number of tournament games that should be expected.
You are ignoring a very important point. Highly seeded teams have a much easier path in the tournament. In Self's 11 years at KU, KU has never had to play a team higher than a 5 seed until they reached at least the Sweet Sixteen.
You are just plain thick if you think that seeding has no bearing on a team's tournament performance.
Also - it is possible to play above your seed. In the same eleven years of Self's tenure, Louisville has played above their seeds. Per seed they were expected to be in two Final Fours - they played in three. Seeds said two Elite Eights - they've played in five. They were seeded to reach the Sweet Sixteen seven times and made it six. There may be better examples, but this shows it can be done.
You are misunderstanding the point. Iowa State fans already agree that both fan bases boo. It is KU fans that don't agree, and therefore, ISU fans are mocking KU fans because of this denial.
All of you are forgetting that KU fans have such high opinions of their team and themselves that any criticism of such team is wrong. Even if that criticism is on their main rival's board. It is not to be tolerated. Everyone needs to stop criticizing the mighty KU Jayhawks and bow to their awesomeness now. 
