Kellen hits a nerve

[im4wsu]

So including regular season and post season, they are a total of 6-6. Not as good as I think their fans would like them to be, or expect them to be.

The 4-3 includes regular and post-season

[ShockerPrez]

So, I think its safe to say, KU would be an upper middle of the pack team in the MVC?


Hahaha. I kid. Not really. Just kidding.

Serioysly, though.

[ShockdaWorld]

The 4-3 includes regular and post-season

Oh ok. Missed that part. 2-0 in regular season games and 2-3 in games in the tournament. Still not good for the flagshit program.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

It's funny how you slide and skew stuff subtley in your direction to make your points. Very crafty and very shady.

Less than half of all 1 seeds make the final four so that justifies KU's paltry 33% rate of making them.

It's also funny that you're using 4 year analysis and comparing it to 10 year analysis.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Since my 5 minute research project apparently wasn't good enough for you, here's the full data for the last decade. Don't question my integrity. This data lines up with the previous, smaller set.

Over the last decade:
16 of 40 (40%)#1 seeds made the Final 4. KU did so 2 out of 6 (33%)
48 of 80 (60%) top 2 seeds made the Elite 8. KU did so 5 out of 9 (56%)
105 of 160 (66%) top 4 seeds survived the first weekend. KU did so 7 out of 10 (70%)

2 of 6 is the closest you can come to 40% in 6 tries.
5 of 9 is the closest you can come to 60% in 9 tries.
7 of 10 is the closest you can come to 66% in 10 tries.

They literally couldn't have been more in line with seed expectations given those sample sizes. Good grief.

[ShockdaWorld]

I spent 5 minutes doing research for you. Since that wasn't good enough, here's the full data for the last decade.

Over the last decade:
16 of 40 (40%)#1 seeds made the Final 4. KU did so 2 out of 6 (33%)
48 of 80 (60%) top 2 seeds made the Elite 8. KU did so 5 out of 9 (56%)
105 of 160 (66%) top 4 seeds survived the first weekend. KU did so 7 out of 10 (70%)

If you said KU was going to play 6, 9, and 10 games respectively for each of those categories, then 2, 5, and 7 are literally the most average outcomes they could possibly achieve. They literally couldn't have been more in line with seed expectations given those sample sizes.

I understand this basically says the same thing you showed yesterday, that they are just very slightly below average when compared to other teams receiving the same seeds. What I wanted to make sure I understand correctly is that KU has only had one season in the past ten where they have been seeded lower than a two?

[SHOCKvalue]

So including regular season and post season, they are a total of 6-6. Not as good as I think their fans would like them to be, or expect them to be.

The 4-3 includes regular and post-season

Oh ok. Missed that part. 2-0 in regular season games and 2-3 in games in the tournament. Still not good for the flagshit program.

That's still hilarious though. Blueblood KU is 57% against the MVC (not just against the MVC's best come NCAA tournament time) over the last 7 games. That's plenty enough sample size to make the stat worthy of pointing and laughing, in the context of KU fan arrogance.

[ShockerFever]

Since my 5 minute research project apparently wasn't good enough for you, here's the full data for the last decade. Don't question my integrity. This data lines up with the previous, smaller set.

Over the last decade:
16 of 40 (40%)#1 seeds made the Final 4. KU did so 2 out of 6 (33%)
48 of 80 (60%) top 2 seeds made the Elite 8. KU did so 5 out of 9 (56%)
105 of 160 (66%) top 4 seeds survived the first weekend. KU did so 7 out of 10 (70%)

2 of 6 is the closest you can come to 40% in 6 tries.
5 of 9 is the closest you can come to 60% in 9 tries.
7 of 10 is the closest you can come to 66% in 10 tries.

They literally couldn't have been more in line with seed expectations given those sample sizes. Good grief.

I'm not a math major, but it appears they still are coming up short in the two big categories. A blueblood with that much on the line should be pulling those statistics up. This isn't any good program. This is an ELITE program that should be putting up ELITE statistics.

I just don't see it.

As an ELITE basketball program I'd say they are grossly underperforming and have essentially been overrated for the better part of the last decade.

[ShockdaWorld]

They like to think of themselves as one of the true blue bloods, not just an average 1,2, or 3 seed, so they should be performing better than an average 1,2,3 seed. I wonder what happens if you match them up against ONLY others that are considered "blue bloods". I'm not even sure who those would be. I guess maybe, Duke, UNC, UK? Those are the only three programs I can think of that I've ever heard a KU fan say are on the level of KU. I could be missing someone though.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I understand this basically says the same thing you showed yesterday, that they are just very slightly below average when compared to other teams receiving the same seeds. What I wanted to make sure I understand correctly is that KU has only had one season in the past ten where they have been seeded lower than a two?

Correct. 9 of last 10 have been 1's or 2's. Full list was here.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?21644-Kellen-hits-a-nerve&p=649955&viewfull=1#post649955

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

They like to think of themselves as one of the true blue bloods, not just an average 1,2, or 3 seed, so they should be performing better than an average 1,2,3 seed. I wonder what happens if you match them up against ONLY others that are considered "blue bloods". I'm not even sure who those would be. I guess maybe, Duke, UNC, UK? Those are the only three programs I can think of that I've ever heard a KU fan say are on the level of KU. I could be missing someone though.

I disagree with your premise. Obtaining a top 2 seed in 9 out of 10 years is the type of thing that makes a blue blood. I disagree that a 1 seeded KU should be expected to outperform a 1 seeded Virginia, or even a 1 seeded WSU, in a given year. It is about the regularity that they reach 1 seed status, not that their 1 seed is somehow better than Virginia/WSU's occasional 1 seed. Just as KU has not underperformed when compared to other high seeds over the years, I see no reason to expect them to have overperformed either. A 1 seed is a 1 seed. A 2 is a 2.

With that said, I'll endulge you for a second. Over the last decade as a top 2 seed, Duke has only reached the Elite Eight 3 out of 7 tries. (43%) If it weren't for having 2 national championships as a distraction, Duke would be considered a significant tournament underachiever over the last decade. If you want to pick on a blueblood for tournament underperformance in a timeframe since 2000, Duke makes much more sense than KU.

[MoValley John]

I disagree with your premise. Obtaining a top 2 seed in 9 out of 10 years is the type of thing that makes a blue blood. I disagree that a 1 seeded KU should be expected to outperform a 1 seeded Virginia, or even a 1 seeded WSU, in a given year. It is about the regularity that they reach 1 seed status, not that their 1 seed is somehow better than Virginia/WSU's occasional 1 seed. Just as KU has not underperformed when compared to other high seeds over the years, I see no reason to expect them to have overperformed either. A 1 seed is a 1 seed. A 2 is a 2.

With that said, I'll endulge you for a second. Over the last decade as a top 2 seed, Duke has only reached the Elite Eight 3 out of 7 tries. (43%) If it weren't for having 2 national championships as a distraction, Duke would be considered a significant tournament underachiever over the last decade. If you want to pick on a blueblood for tournament underperformance in a timeframe since 2000, Duke makes much more sense than KU.

So, Duke has two natty's in seven tries as a one or two seed, Kansas has one natty in nine tries. I'd say given similar opportunities, Duke has far outperformed Kansas. Give Kansas a second natty in those nine opportunities and the conversation might not be happening.

[ShockdaWorld]

I disagree with your premise. Obtaining a top 2 seed in 9 out of 10 years is the type of thing that makes a blue blood. I disagree that a 1 seeded KU should be expected to outperform a 1 seeded Virginia, or even a 1 seeded WSU, in a given year. It is about the regularity that they reach 1 seed status, not that their 1 seed is somehow better than Virginia/WSU's occasional 1 seed. Just as KU has not underperformed when compared to other high seeds over the years, I see no reason to expect them to have overperformed either. A 1 seed is a 1 seed. A 2 is a 2.

With that said, I'll endulge you for a second. Over the last decade as a top 2 seed, Duke has only reached the Elite Eight 3 out of 7 tries. (43%) If it weren't for having 2 national championships as a distraction, Duke would be considered a significant tournament underachiever over the last decade.

You're probably right. It shouldn't be expected for their 1 seed to mean more than Virginia's 1 seed, but if you ask many of their fans, it does (no, not all, but many). I was simply going off what many of KU fans have stated, that their program is amongst the best of the best, the "elitest of the elite". So, I had to wonder how they would measure up against said "elitest of the elites". Disagreeing with my premise is fine, as it's not really anything that can be proven statistically one way or another, but is more of an opinion based argument as to what constitutes a "blue blood". It wasn't intended as an argument one way or another, just a wondering in my mind that happened to make it through my fingertips and onto ShockerNet. Also, I like your use of the word "Obtaining" rather than "earning," as you know that would've drawn the ire of many of the more vocal posters. :)

[Cdizzle]

I liked the version with Barry better. Mostly because of what it means about your autocorrect.

[ShockdaWorld]

KU has a good history. They are only slightly below average at tournament time when compared to other teams receiving the same seeding over the last decade. WSU has been better the last four years (statistically). I think that's all been pretty well established by JH4P's and other's stats. I'd actually love to see the MVC vs. KU tourney stats for the last ten years or so if anyone has those, and maybe even B12-2 vs. MVC tourney stats during the same time. Could be interesting. Also looking forward to see where both teams are next year. I think we will still be damn good, and I really don't know about them. Will they be pretty much the same team just minus Perry, or will they lose any other contributors?

Quoting myself. UGH. Just read that Selden declared for the draft today.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

So, Duke has two natty's in seven tries as a one or two seed, Kansas has one natty in nine tries. I'd say given similar opportunities, Duke has far outperformed Kansas. Give Kansas a second natty in those nine opportunities and the conversation might not be happening.

If all you care about it national title or bust, then yes, Duke is ahead of Kansas in that regard.
If you start factoring in that Duke has been upset in 2vs15 and 3vs14 matchups in the first round, and has a poor percentage of appearances in the Elite 8 relative to their high seeds, then Kansas quickly looks much better.

Either viewpoint is reasonable. Obviously I'm of the opinion that losing 2vs15 type matchups needs to be accounted for when discussing tournament disappointments.