2015-16 Media love thread

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

2009-2011 Louisville earned 1, 9, and 4 seeds. They won a mere 3 tourney games total from those positions. Then they went to the Final Four in 2012 and won the whole thing in 2013 with lots of Jr's/Sr's.
2007-2009 Duke earned 6, 2, and 2 seeds. They won a mere 3 tourney games total from those positions. Then they won the whole thing in 2010 with lots of Jr's/Sr's.

Heck, the Rush/Chalmers/Robinson trio led KU in mins/gm in both 2006 and 2008. They lost to Bradley in the first round in 2006. They won the title in 2008.

The correlation between early exists in past years and probability of advancing in the current year is very weak.

[ShockdaWorld]

Haha!!! There's that Jayhawk love we've all come to know and expect. One year does not history make. Repeating the same scenario year after year makes it look a lot more like a generality than a break from the norm.

[OregonShocker]

The correlation between early exists in past years and probability of advancing in the current year is very weak.

Winning Championships in any sport is a combination of skill and luck; skill can be estimated, while luck can't. Considering a "one loss you're out" format, it REALLY becomes difficult. Almost every CBB champion in recent years has had a close call that could've cost them a win. I'd be surprised with ANY correlation other than more skill present reducing the luck factor; but the luck factor cannot be eliminated.

[ShockerPrez]

KU does have some upper classmen. And they could win it all just like a lot of teams.

And they do play more defense than most.
I dont know how tough they are.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

People forget that the Shox were 1 basket away from taking a 5 seed, 9 seed, and 1 seed and combining for a mere 2 wins in those 3 years. History says those 3 seeds should average more than 5 wins total.

People get way too anxious to make extremely small sample sizes somehow prove their predetermined opinions true.

[ShockdaWorld]

Feeling that love loud and clear.

[WstateU]

Feeling that love loud and clear.

First on another page; it's becoming a habit. :)

[ShockdaWorld]

First on another page; it's becoming a habit. :)

Darn it man. And I forgot to quote anything again. :(

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

People forget that the Shox were 1 basket away from taking a 5 seed, 9 seed, and 1 seed and combining for a mere 2 wins in those 3 years. History says those 3 seeds should average more than 5 wins total.

People get way too anxious to make extremely small sample sizes somehow prove their predetermined opinions true.

I'm not sure I understand. We beat Gonzaga by more than one basket--although if you merely mean we were very close to losing to Gonzaga then I get your point.

The opposite can also be true. We were a basket away from beating VCU, and who knows what that '12 team could have accomplished in later rounds. And the '14 team could have won the whole damn thing had Cle simply made that one missed dunk against Kentucky.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm not sure I understand. We beat Gonzaga by more than one basket--although if you merely mean we were very close to losing to Gonzaga then I get your point.

The opposite can also be true. We were a basket away from beating VCU, and who knows what that '12 team could have accomplished in later rounds. And the '14 team could have won the whole damn thing had Cle simply made that one missed dunk against Kentucky.

Yes, I meant to point out that the Gonzaga game was extremely close. You are correct about the final margin being more than 1 possession.

Yes also to "it goes both ways". That's the point. Making sweeping judgments based on 1-2 possessions is silly.

[ShockdaWorld]

That's the point. It's NOT 1-2 possessions. It's a repetitive pattern. Why is that so hard? :)

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

That's the point. It's NOT 1-2 possessions. It's a repetitive pattern. Why is that so hard? :)

Louisville, Duke, and KU have shown a repetitive pattern of teams winning it all soon after a few disappointing years. I take it you are betting on KU to do the same this year?

[im4wsu]

How much of KU's roster was a part of their past tourney failures? Silly to use Bucknell, Bradley, or UNI against the current roster.

Who is using them against the current roster? Why don't you assume it is being used against the "program," or "coach"? If a program is consistently good, they receive the benefit of being prejudged to being good again; if a team is consistently winless, they will usually be prejudged to be bad again, regardless of roster changes. Is it right? No, but it is also worng to ignore trends.

A relatively good defensive team that can force KU into a half-court game and limit the alley-oops & slam dunks to one to two per game will have a very good chance of scoring more points during the allowable time the game is played.

[ShockdaWorld]

Louisville, Duke, and KU have shown a repetitive pattern of teams winning it all soon after a few disappointing years. I take it you are betting on KU to do the same this year?

Consistent underperformance by the same team based on where they are ranked/seeded and where they finish/get knocked out is a repetitive pattern for THAT team. If you can show me where KU has overperformed anytime over the last number of years, I'd be glad to look at it, but bringing up other teams to prove that KU hasn't underperformed come tournament time seems a bit silly. And I'm not talking about how they continually win the overranked B12-2. I'm talking about the NCAA tournament.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Who is using them against the current roster? Why don't you assume it is being used against the "program," or "coach"?

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to bring up the coach/program.

This all started when people laughed at the idea that KU might make a deep run this March. In the last decade, Self/KU has 6 Sweet 16s, 4 Elite 8s, 2 title game appearances, and 1 national championship.

I root against KU all day long, but the arguments I’m hearing against their chances of a deep run this year are driven by hatred, not facts.