It's Game Day, Ladies and Gentlemen

[Deleted User 863]

So you'd rather not win the B12 if you can't have a national title?
Wut?

Not what I am saying.

But it won't be what i consider a season grade of "A" without a natty.

[CrimsonNBlue]

We've won one B12 title in 3 years.
I care.
We can win the B12 title and the National Championship.

A non con game v Kentucky doesn't have anything to do with either of those really.

Sure. All true. I just mean a big 12 title absent of a natty doesn't move the needle for me any more now that the streak has ended.

I only really cared about the Big 12 title when matching and setting the all-time record. All other years, great if we get it, but not at the expense of getting the team in the best position for the NCAA tournament where all teams' success is ultimately judged.

The joy of winning a conference championship dissipates in a matter of days at Kansas Basketball.

[Deleted User 863]

KU wins the Big 12, maybe the toughest conference in America.
Needle not moved at all.
Needle only moves if KU wins 6 games in a single elimination tournament.

That's a shitty needle.

Maybe it is a shitty needle. But when you've been the most dominant program for the last 4ish decades and have only 1 natty to show for it, that just isn't going to feel completely satisfying.

It's time to win the big 1.

Getting to a bunch of AFC title games won't make Mahomes a GOAT. Winning super bowls will.

[pdub]

"The joy of winning a conference championship dissipates in a matter of days at Kansas Basketball."

Not for me.
You're a conference champion for a full year until dethroned.

[pdub]

"But when you've been the most dominant program for the last 4ish decades"

One large reason why we are considered dominant is BECAUSE we win conference titles.
If we stop winning titles AND don't do anything in the NCAA tournament, we will not be 'dominant'.

[pdub]

But the original point, @ ISU and @ UT are still quadrant 1 wins, the same as beating Kentucky at home. So you are doing the same for your resume for the NCAA tournament while also doing something just as important, winning the B12.

[twocoach]

We've won one B12 title in 3 years.
I care.
We can win the B12 title and the National Championship.

A non con game v Kentucky doesn't have anything to do with either of those really.

Sure. All true. I just mean a big 12 title absent of a natty doesn't move the needle for me any more now that the streak has ended.

I only really cared about the Big 12 title when matching and setting the all-time record. All other years, great if we get it, but not at the expense of getting the team in the best position for the NCAA tournament where all teams' success is ultimately judged.

The joy of winning a conference championship dissipates in a matter of days at Kansas Basketball.

Can someone describe this mythical scenario where trying to win the Big 12 title comes "at the expense of" KU being in a better position to win a national title? I hear this argument all the time but no one can provide a logical example of what that would ever be. It's usually just assumptions that someone younger didn't get enough minutes and "would have been the difference if he was allowed to develop in Big 12 play with more minutes" which is pure assumption that is rarely likely to have actually been realistic.

Winning the Big 12, especially as good as it is, guarantees a #1 or #2 seed. What more do you want to ensure that KU has the best possible chance to succeed in the tourney besides the highest possible seed? There is zero guarantee that some random bench player would develop into the difference maker on the biggest stage thanks to some extra minutes in Big 12 play. History has shown that getting the best possible seed is the best way to increase your odds of tourney success and there is loads of data to support that.

[twocoach]

"The joy of winning a conference championship dissipates in a matter of days at Kansas Basketball."

Not for me.
You're a conference champion for a full year until dethroned.

Not for me at all. Winning the conference means that you beat a lot of really good teams and I get the most enjoyment from Kansas beating really good teams as often as possible. Isn't that the point of the sport?

[Deleted User 863]

We should win the big 12 every single year.

We have no peer in the big 12.

[twocoach]

KU wins the Big 12, maybe the toughest conference in America.
Needle not moved at all.
Needle only moves if KU wins 6 games in a single elimination tournament.

That's a shitty needle.

Maybe it is a shitty needle. But when you've been the most dominant program for the last 4ish decades and have only 1 natty to show for it, that just isn't going to feel completely satisfying.

It's time to win the big 1.

Getting to a bunch of AFC title games won't make Mahomes a GOAT. Winning super bowls will.

It's not an either/or thing. I enjoy watching Kansas play and win games. Would I be more satisfied if they won more national titles? Sure, but as a Kansas fan, I am already very satisfied with the performance of Kansas basketball over the last few decades.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Sure. All true. I just mean a big 12 title absent of a natty doesn't move the needle for me any more now that the streak has ended.

I only really cared about the Big 12 title when matching and setting the all-time record. All other years, great if we get it, but not at the expense of getting the team in the best position for the NCAA tournament where all teams' success is ultimately judged.

The joy of winning a conference championship dissipates in a matter of days at Kansas Basketball.

Can someone describe this mythical scenario where trying to win the Big 12 title comes "at the expense of" KU being in a better position to win a national title? I hear this argument all the time but no one can provide a logical example of what that would ever be. It's usually just assumptions that someone younger didn't get enough minutes and "would have been the difference if he was allowed to develop in Big 12 play with more minutes" which is pure assumption that is rarely likely to have actually been realistic.

Winning the Big 12, especially as good as it is, guarantees a #1 or #2 seed. What more do you want to ensure that KU has the best possible chance to succeed in the tourney besides the highest possible seed? There is zero guarantee that some random bench player would develop into the difference maker on the biggest stage thanks to some extra minutes in Big 12 play. History has shown that getting the best possible seed is the best way to increase your odds of tourney success and there is loads of data to support that.

It does not guarantee a #1 or #2 seed. We were a #4 seed in 2006 and a #3 seed in 2009, and would have been a #3 seed in 2014 if the committee knew Embiid wasn't going to play.

I would like to win everything available to us, but a bad regular season can be completely cured. A conference title, for me, does not take the sting away of losing to UNI, VCU, Villanova, etc. That is how those teams are remembered and judged.

[twocoach]

We should win the big 12 every single year.

We have no peer in the big 12.

That's silly. Three other Big 12 teams have made the Final Four in the last 5 tourneys.

We should contend for the Big 12 every year and win it most years.

[Deleted User 863]

Nobody is saying it's an either or thing.

[Cascadia]

Houston is 4th in Kenpom.
BYU is 25th.

Texas is 17th in Kenpom.
Oklahoma 36th.

Two National Brands and one dope city vs a city school and religious nutjobs

[Deleted User 863]

We should win the big 12 every single year.

We have no peer in the big 12.

That's silly. Three other Big 12 teams have made the Final Four in the last 5 tourneys.

We should contend for the Big 12 every year and win it most years.

That doesn't make them our peer.

UK Duke UNC. That's probably it.

[pdub]

The sting is there, for sure, it's the nature of the beast.
But I can sit back, logically, and understand the difficulty of winning the most games in a 10 or 12 conference, so 16 or 18 games, in statistically one of the top 2 or 3 conferences in that time period, is more difficult than beating a UNI, VCU or Nova, one time.

[Cascadia]

Future of the Big 12

Cow Towns
Kansas St
Iowa St
Oklahoma St

Hillbillies
Texas Tech
West Virginia

Religious Nutjobs
TCU
Baylor
BYU

City Schools
Cincinnati
Houston
Central Florida (could also go under Hillbillies)


We've got to get off this sinking ship. Fuck...............

[pdub]

Nobody is saying it's an either or thing.

You said the needle is not moved unless KU wins a title.
Needle just sits there, not moving, unless we win 6 games in March/early April.
Otherwise, needle might as well be broken. Call the needle repair man if we make the title game.

[twocoach]

I only really cared about the Big 12 title when matching and setting the all-time record. All other years, great if we get it, but not at the expense of getting the team in the best position for the NCAA tournament where all teams' success is ultimately judged.

The joy of winning a conference championship dissipates in a matter of days at Kansas Basketball.

Can someone describe this mythical scenario where trying to win the Big 12 title comes "at the expense of" KU being in a better position to win a national title? I hear this argument all the time but no one can provide a logical example of what that would ever be. It's usually just assumptions that someone younger didn't get enough minutes and "would have been the difference if he was allowed to develop in Big 12 play with more minutes" which is pure assumption that is rarely likely to have actually been realistic.

Winning the Big 12, especially as good as it is, guarantees a #1 or #2 seed. What more do you want to ensure that KU has the best possible chance to succeed in the tourney besides the highest possible seed? There is zero guarantee that some random bench player would develop into the difference maker on the biggest stage thanks to some extra minutes in Big 12 play. History has shown that getting the best possible seed is the best way to increase your odds of tourney success and there is loads of data to support that.

It does not guarantee a #1 or #2 seed. We were a #4 seed in 2006 and a #3 seed in 2009, and would have been a #3 seed in 2014 if the committee knew Embiid wasn't going to play.

I would like to win everything available to us, but a bad regular season can be completely cured. A conference title, for me, does not take the sting away of losing to UNI, VCU, Villanova, etc. That is how those teams are remembered and judged.

2006: We tied with Texas, who got a #2 seed. The team right behind us got a #12 seed. I'd rather be a #4 seed than a #12 seed.

2009: We tied with Oklahoma, who got a #2 seed. The team 1 game back also got a #3 seed and the teams right behind that got from a 7 to a 9 seed.

2014: The team that won the Big 12 had Joel Embiid on it and that team earned a #2 seed.

[twocoach]

We should win the big 12 every single year.

We have no peer in the big 12.

That's silly. Three other Big 12 teams have made the Final Four in the last 5 tourneys.

We should contend for the Big 12 every year and win it most years.

That doesn't make them our peer.

UK Duke UNC. That's probably it.

Oh, god, you aren't going to get hung up on the word "peer" like you did on "rival" are you? That was exhausting.

It doesn't require having a "peer" to not be expected to win the toughest conference in the sport every year.