Kansas Crimson

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:37 am You thought we were "fuck all you losers" favorites all of those seasons?

That's some serious optimism and/or completely ignoring the strength and abilities of the dominant teams in many of those years.

yes?

again, I expect KU to be able to go on a run and maybe even win it all most seasons, and go into most tournaments with a sense of confidence - fanboy hubris, even! - more so than a sense of nervousness.

Ok.

To me, being capable of "going on a run" is a lot different than being the "fuck you any time any place" favorites.

The goalposts have moved a bit.



I appreciate you trying to be positive, but after multiple consecutive years of being negative, this feels forced and some weird messageboard point scoring mission the last 24 hours or so. Lots of "good job, good post" stuff going on.

It feels a little fishy to me.

I have to feel like if we would have looked awesome without DH the other night that this sudden shift may not have occurred.

But our guards and team looked like shit, and your go to narrative that "they'll look better without DH" and "they'll look more comfortable getting more minutes and playing DH less" seems to have been debunked in real time right before our eyes.

I think that "going on a run" is very much within the same goalposts as my "any time any place" sort of fanboy confidence.

I think the goalpost move, rather, may be to shift the discussion from general fanboy confidence from season to season, to now questioning the sincerity of my compliments to other posters, and also specific details about the previous game. This is getting to be all over the place.

also, if you're going to fault me for being negative, maybe try to do it NOT in the exact same post as you saying things like, "our guards and team looked like shit."

This year's team is capable of "going on a run".

The 1996/97 team that only lost 2 games all year and had almost an entire starting 5 of NBA players is an example of an "any time any place fuck you losers" favorite.

There is a big difference. Look at the high seeds that have made final fours recently. The list is long.

It's fine to "want" KU to win every game every single year. But it's not realistic. But you get fan of the day, I guess.

I'm positive and negative when warranted. With certain people (we all have watched this show long enough to know the characters) you are negative (often when not deserved) and then disappear or shift focus when positivity would be warranted.

Negativity is allowed. So is getting called out for it when it isn't deserved. Nobody is going to put on the kiddie gloves with you around here after years of nonsense about several current players.

I'm afraid this is indeed a down year, at least by KU standards. We don't normally go into February with 5 losses already.

As for high seeds that have made final fours recently - absolutely. But then there's some question of whether KU can play some David role (versus Goliath, even when we're a higher-than-usual seed). How does a team like KU go under the radar, versus being the team every single opponent circles on their schedule?

And, for the sake of KU hoops trivia - what's the highest seed KU has ever had en route to a FF? I might try to look it up, just seeing if anyone else knows off the top of their head.

I agree that negativity is allowed. I think what we see more of is certain posters picking and choosing whether to allow negativity from other posters and/or about particular players, often arbitrarily - for real, other posters criticize the same players I do, yet you don't hound them for it like you do to me.

As for this phenomenon of "getting called out" and kiddie gloves" - I just think it's kinda silly, to say the least, that certain posters choose to deputize themselves as message board cops.

a cursory search suggests the lowest seed we've ever made it to a Final Four with is a 4 seed in 1988

at least in the modern (64+ team) tournament era, which is as far back as I looked.

what? we were a 6 seed in 88. I watched that tournament live and then on video tape more times than I can count. I'm 1000% positive of that.

Don't know if thats the highest seed we've ever made the final four with but I would guess it is and I am for sure certain we were a 6 seed that year.

Well we haven't been worse than a 4 seed very often the last 30 years.

So not sure what you're trying to prove exactly?

Recent final four seeds:

2024: 1, 1, 4, 11
2023: 4, 5, 5, 9
2022: 1 (KU), 2, 2, 8
2021: 1, 1, 2, 11
2019: 1, 3, 5, 2
2018: 1 (KU), 1, 3, 11
2017: 1, 1, 3, 7
2016: 1, 2, 2, 10
2015: 1, 1, 1, 7
2014: 1, 2, 7, 8
2013: 1, 4, 4, 9
2012: 1, 2 (KU), 2, 4
2011: 3, 4, 8, 11

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:58 am what? we were a 6 seed in 88. I watched that tournament live and then on video tape more times than I can count. I'm 1000% positive of that.

Don't know if thats the highest seed we've ever made the final four with but I would guess it is and I am for sure certain we were a 6 seed that year.

oh shit, good catch!

I just glanced it this teeny tiny ass bracket printout which only showed the seeds in the initial round of 64, and traced Kansas from right to left across the bracket back to the initial round, and neglected to notice the (4) Kansas also had a "St." next to it.



Gross!

While it's a matter of opinion that I don't think I've ever done anything here that actually warrants disciplinary action, and a matter of fact that mods have never issued any disciplinary action against me, I think this might finally be the thing that warrants as much.

PDub, you can go ahead and ban me now.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:59 am
So not sure what you're trying to prove exactly?

I wasn't trying to prove anything per se, so much as just question whether a team like KU is capable of playing the role of David; some under-the-radar seed that can sneak up on other teams, rather than be the Goliath that gets every other team's best shot regardless.

KU seeds by year since 88 (includes 88):

6, post season ban, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 6, 8, 4, 1, 2, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, covid, 3, 1, 1, 4

BiggDick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:12 am

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:59 am
So not sure what you're trying to prove exactly?

I wasn't trying to prove anything per se, so much as just question whether a team like KU is capable of playing the role of David; some under-the-radar seed that can sneak up on other teams, rather than be the Goliath that gets every other team's best shot regardless.

Well, I just provided over a decades worth of evidence of 3 4 5 and worse seeds making finals fours basically every single year.

You create these bizarre narratives in your head (the whole "david/goliath" "can KU play this role or that role").

KU has won a natty as a 6 seed and they've won a natty as a 1 seed.

KU has won as "David" and they've won as "Goliath".

We haven't made many final fours as worse than a 4 seed because in the last almost 40 years we've been worse than a 4 seed exactly 3 times. And we won a natty in 1 of those years.

OK.

good talk!

Hopefully you feel a little better about our chances of "going on a run" and making a final four this season after seeing how many 4+ seeded teams have made the final four over the last few decades.

ugh, sorry to get a little guttery

but...

in the Self KU era, at least, as a 4 seed we've been bounced in the first round a lot more often than we've advanced.

But, regardless of what seed we are, once the tournament rolls around I expect to feel filled with fanboy hubris, and be ready to take on anyone in our path regardless. It happens like that every year, even last year, even if there are guttery indications to suggest it's not likely.

BiggDick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:00 pm ugh, sorry to get a little guttery

but...

in the Self KU era, at least, as a 4 seed we've been bounced in the first round a lot more often than we've advanced.

But, regardless of what seed we are, once the tournament rolls around I expect to feel filled with fanboy hubris, and be ready to take on anyone in our path regardless. It happens like that every year, even last year, even if there are guttery indications to suggest it's not likely.

I don't want to look it all up. But since you have...

You said lost "a lot" more than advanced...

What is our record as a 4 seed in the tournament under Self?

How many times have we been a 4 serd under Self?

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:05 pm

BiggDick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:00 pm ugh, sorry to get a little guttery

but...

in the Self KU era, at least, as a 4 seed we've been bounced in the first round a lot more often than we've advanced.

But, regardless of what seed we are, once the tournament rolls around I expect to feel filled with fanboy hubris, and be ready to take on anyone in our path regardless. It happens like that every year, even last year, even if there are guttery indications to suggest it's not likely.

I don't want to look it all up. But since you have...

You said lost "a lot" more than advanced...

What is our record as a 4 seed in the tournament under Self?

How many times have we been a 4 serd under Self?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sc ... ansas/men/

As a 4 seed under Self:

2023: lost in Round of 32
2019: lost in Round of 32
2006: lost in Round of 64
2004: lost in Elite Eight

As a 3 seed under Self:
2021: lost in Round of 32
2009: lost in Sweet Sixteen
2005: lost in Round of 64

As a 2 seed under Self:
2015: lost in Round of 32
2014: lost in Round of 32
2012: lost in National Title game

As a 1 seed under Bill Self:
2023: lost in Round of 32
2022: Won National Title
2018: lost in Final Four semifinal
2017: lost in Elite Eight
2016: lost in Elite Eight
2013: lost in Sweet Sixteen
2011: lost in Elite Eight
2010: lost in Round of 32
2008: Won National Title
2007: lost in Elite Eight

Basically, Self has failed to make it out of the first weekend as a 2-4 seed 7 of 10 times.

So not exactly lost "a lot" more than won as a 4 seed. (Shocker)

1-1
1-1
0-1
3-1

By my math, that's 5-4

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:26 pm So not exactly lost "a lot" more than won as a 4 seed. (Shocker)

1-1
1-1
0-1
3-1

By my math, that's 5-4

First round? Yes, he was inaccurate as it was just 1 of 4 times. First weekend? He would have been correct as that is 3 of 4.

Side note:

Look at all those 1 seed years!