Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 8:13 am I don't have too much of an argument beyond that two of those seasons where they won the tournament they were absolutely not the best team in the nation. But even then, if they win tomorrow they'll still have 4 titles in the new age where they can reasonably say they were the best and won it all.

I'll throw in one other argument.
UConn has not been consistently good in those 30 years mentioned.
They've missed the NCAA tournament a good amount, accepting NIT bids.
They've also straight up missed post seasons ( not just NCAA but NIT as well ) with .500 or worse records.

Sort of where I am at. A bit torn on where they should rank.

Obviously winning national titles is a huge part of it, probably fair to call it the biggest part, because that's the biggest goal each year. But having really bad down years should matter too. How much? Hard to say.

I do like the "new blood" term for them.

and that’s exactly why i’m a boilermaker for the next 36ish hours

the bww chads and t-shirt fans will see 6 titles and that’s it

sustained success is WAAAAY more difficult than catching lightning in a bottle…a la Kemba Walker, for example

hurley may very well be building a foundation for that success, but greenberg saying they’ve been the most dominant program over the past 30 is flat wrong, imo

but hot takes get clicks, so whatever

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:06 am and that’s exactly why i’m a boilermaker for the next 36ish hours

the bww chads and t-shirt fans will see 6 titles and that’s it

sustained success is WAAAAY more difficult than catching lightning in a bottle…a la Kemba Walker, for example

hurley may very well be building a foundation for that success, but greenberg saying they’ve been the most dominant program over the past 30 is flat wrong, imo

but hot takes get clicks, so whatever

When it comes to national championships, they sort of have been the most dominant the last 30 years though.

And, winning championships is kind of the a main objective of sports.

And what exactly is "sustained success" supposed to mean? Does that mean no down years? Or could it mean winning titles with multiple different head coaches? They've had down years, but they've also had sustained success over those 3 decades as evidenced by all the national titles.

It's an interesting debate.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:06 am and that’s exactly why i’m a boilermaker for the next 36ish hours

the bww chads and t-shirt fans will see 6 titles and that’s it

sustained success is WAAAAY more difficult than catching lightning in a bottle…a la Kemba Walker, for example

hurley may very well be building a foundation for that success, but greenberg saying they’ve been the most dominant program over the past 30 is flat wrong, imo

but hot takes get clicks, so whatever

Greenberg is a fucking idiot.

Go fighting Edeys!

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:18 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:06 am and that’s exactly why i’m a boilermaker for the next 36ish hours

the bww chads and t-shirt fans will see 6 titles and that’s it

sustained success is WAAAAY more difficult than catching lightning in a bottle…a la Kemba Walker, for example

hurley may very well be building a foundation for that success, but greenberg saying they’ve been the most dominant program over the past 30 is flat wrong, imo

but hot takes get clicks, so whatever

When it comes to national championships, they sort of have been the most dominant the last 30 years though.

And, winning championships is kind of the a main objective of sports.

And what exactly is "sustained success" supposed to mean? Does that mean no down years? Or could it mean winning titles with multiple different head coaches? They've had down years, but they've also had sustained success over those 3 decades as evidenced by all the national titles.

It's an interesting debate.

you put more stock in tournament titles than i do when looking at the whole picture

that’s fine

Sustained success, for me, would not allow for 3 seasons in a row of sub .500 ball in a 30 year period.

And i'd agree, titles are the main objective of sports, but this particular sport has one of the worst methodologies at winning said title ( but also, because it's one of the worst, the most exciting ).

Birds eye BWW Chad view there's no question, UConn is the bloodiest of new bloods.
BWW Chad thinks vodka sodas are for pussies but has no issues pounding White Claw at his slow pitch softball games.

pdub wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:27 am Sustained success, for me, would not allow for 3 seasons in a row of sub .500 ball in a 30 year period.

And i'd agree, titles are the main objective of sports, but this particular sport has one of the worst methodologies at winning said title ( but also, because it's one of the worst, the most exciting ).

I may be remembering incorrectly, but a few of those are due to vacated wins, correct?

lol…that’s just adding insult to injury if that’s that case

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:30 am

pdub wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:27 am Sustained success, for me, would not allow for 3 seasons in a row of sub .500 ball in a 30 year period.

And i'd agree, titles are the main objective of sports, but this particular sport has one of the worst methodologies at winning said title ( but also, because it's one of the worst, the most exciting ).

I may be remembering incorrectly, but a few of those are due to vacated wins, correct?

Looks like they were losing records anyway, but then also had wins vacated (assuming I am understanding this grid I am looking at).

Loosing seasons vacated.
So extra worse.

the mere presence of nc state in the FF speaks volumes about the ability of the tourney to determine the best team

but as pdub alluded to, them being there embodies the excitement (and draw for many…cinderella’s, underdogs, etc) of the tourney

At least this year the 2 best teams for most of the year are battling for a title.

Either team will be a deserving champion.

I think a healthy Houston is better than Purdue but I have no issue saying Purdue is a top 4 team.

pdub wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:52 am I think a healthy Houston is better than Purdue but I have no issue saying Purdue is a top 4 team.

I probably wouldn't disagree that Houston looked better when they were fully on.

But I also think Houston's offensive struggles at times made them less suited for this format than Purdue. Edey just becomes impossible for some/most teams to deal with. Purdue probably has the experience edge also, even though they got dropped in rd 1 last year.

Houston's adjO was top 12 going into the tournament.

Purdue has issues with turnovers ( it was what was keeping NC State in the game ).
Houston is the best team at causing turnovers.
If Shead doesn't get hurt I think they woulda been in the final.

w/ Edey and their 3pt shooting (just north of 40% AS A TEAM), presuming it shows up, they’ve definitely got enough to get the job done

pdub wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:03 am Houston's adjO was top 12 going into the tournament.

They scored 41pts and got blown out by 28 to Iowa State in the big 12 tourney....they also scored 53 in a different loss to Iowa State.

Houston had major offensive issues regardless kenpom ranking. Especially when comparing to Purdue, even with turnover issues.

After looking at each teams schedule and record, Purdue played a much harder schedule as well.

pdub wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:03 am Houston's adjO was top 12 going into the tournament.

Purdue has issues with turnovers ( it was what was keeping NC State in the game ).
Houston is the best team at causing turnovers.
If Shead doesn't get hurt I think they woulda been in the final.

Well if we are playing the what if game then I'll go with if KM doesn't get hurt then we'd have beaten Houston in the final four and we'd be in the final. That sounds like more fun (for us at least).

This kind of NIL doesn't bother me at all...

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5bKIxFsDi- ... p6YXl3OWZj

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:28 am

pdub wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:03 am Houston's adjO was top 12 going into the tournament.

Purdue has issues with turnovers ( it was what was keeping NC State in the game ).
Houston is the best team at causing turnovers.
If Shead doesn't get hurt I think they woulda been in the final.

Well if we are playing the what if game then I'll go with if KM doesn't get hurt then we'd have beaten Houston in the final four and we'd be in the final. That sounds like more fun (for us at least).

Silly.
Shead was hurt in a one possession game against Duke ( and looked quite a bit better than they did with Shead in - I think they were up 8 or 10 ) who then went on to loose to NC State.
The gaps in hypotheticals ( yours vs mine ) are vastly different.

Purdue's biggest weakness ( a bad team at keeping possession ) plays right into Houston's strength ( the best team - or second best depending on metrics with the aforementioned Iowa State ahead - at taking possession ). They were stronger in Kenpom going into the tourney. They are STILL stronger in Bartorvik. Bummer for them that Shead went out.