@wrwlumpy said:
@jaybate-1.0 Six days on the road and I’m gonna make it home tonight…
wrwlumpy, did you just make a Dave Dudley reference? Thumbs way up, sir!
I was about 7 or 8 when that show originally aired and I hadn't watched it since, which is why I'm binge-watching right now.
Yes, Gomez was the Hispanic player and the setting was in LA. Ken Howard's character, coach Ken Reeves, played professionally for the Bulls before a knee injury ended his career at which time he is convinced by a buddy of his to move to LA and coach Carver High.
The show does have a good message. What strikes me about it is how all the different racial backgrounds meld together on the show. There's a lot of humor and a lot of rough-housing and everyone has problems, but ultimately everyone gets along. That's how I remember things when I was a kid. We all acted tough and made fun of each other, but we all cared about one another. It wasn't bullying, just kids being kids. Race just wasn't an issue. We all came from different backgrounds and some had more and others less, but none of that mattered. Today, things seem so splintered. Maybe I'm just old.
What also strikes me about the show is how many future Hollywood people got some of their earliest breaks with bit parts on the show. I've seen Liz Sheridan (Jerry Seinfeld's mom on the show), Dennis Haysbert (All-State spokesman and Cyrano in the film Major League) among others. Several big-time sports celebs like Bill Russell, Sparky Anderson, Rosie Grier and others made cameos from time to time. Even Salami (Mario Pettrino) was played by Timothy Van Patten, who is related to the late Dick Van Patten and went on to be a Hollywood producer. Yeah, the pacing is slow compared to today's shows, but it had a good moral thread running through it and they took on some pretty hefty social topics for its time. All in all a decent show.
@wissoxfan83 said:
Wow, I like your knowledge of the Chicago public scene! I’ve more or less lost touch with Chicago hoops. I used to attend Proviso West tournament on trips home at Christmas, but it’s been 4 or 5 years since I’ve been there. Don’t know of the Reeves you’re talking about. I love Chicago public league basketball, Nothing like it in the country in my opinion.
wissoxfan83: Ken Reeves is the name of the head coach of Carver High School on the old TV show The White Shadow, which ran from 1978-1981 or thereabouts. I was trying to be funny with my White Shadow/Hoosiers coach references as Jaybate didn't specify real or fictional coaches in his original thread. My family and I just cut our cable and got a Roku at Christmas, so I've been sifting through old shows from my youth and found The White Shadow on HuluPlus. I'm currently watching the final season, which is why I know so many of the plot lines. Anyway, sorry for the arcane reference. If you haven't seen the show, I'd recommend it.
@jaybate-1.0 said:
Dale yes!
Reeves no! 😄
I'm not so sure I agree with your assessment of Reeves. Sure he coached at Carver High, and had no college coaching experience, but his time with the Chicago Bulls gave him plenty of pro-experience to draw upon. And talk about adversity! In just his first season at Carver he dealt with Curtis Jackson's drinking problem, a low-level Shoe Co. representative (probably from Pony or perhaps Nike) wooing Coolidge with promises of riches, Reese's girlfriend's pregnancy, Ricky Gomez' gang affiliation, and Mario Pettrino's membership in an extra-curricular street fighting club to earn money. He also had a deaf kid on the team and lost a player to a congenital heart condition.
On the recruiting trail, Reeves operates on the street level, using his charm and skill to get the kids no one else can. He plucked Heyward right from the schoolyard and beat superstar hustler Bobby Magnum in a game of one-on-one to get him to play basketball at Carver. However, not all of his finds panned out. He lost one blue chip, Mack Wade, when he found out the kid was a group two functional illiterate and had been using his huge basketball upside to hide that secret.
Despite all the turmoil, Reeves gets his kids to buy in to the system and they win the city championship in his second season.
It's speculative at best to know how his coaching would translate at the D-1 level, but it seems like a paintball episode, a couple of clearinghouse issues and an injury here or there would be small potatoes compared to what Reeves dealt with at Carver.
Ken Reeves and Norman Dale.
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article22971699.html ↗
Surprised this hasn't been posted to the board yet. If it has been discussed, my apologies. According to an article in the KC Star, Cliff Alexander injured his knee during a pre-draft workout for the Lakers. It appears to be a mild sprain of the MCL and he is scheduled to miss 3 to 5 days. How this may affect his workouts going forward or his possible draft status is unknown.
On the surface, for me at least, this is sort of a final indignity for a highly-touted prospect who, through circumstances supposedly out of his control, forfeited any remaining eligibility and development time he could have had at Kansas. I say "supposedly" because details are still scant as to what really went down. My gut tells me he was used as a pawn by his family for a quick payday, but the article hints at a glibness in interviews, dismissing the whole thing as being dealt a bad hand. He goes even further, sort of tossing Self's rotation tendencies under the bus when asked about his inability to stay on the court in his up-and-down, truncated freshman season.
Personally, I have compassion for the guy, but many see the injury as instant karmic payback for familial arrogance. Either way, if this injury further diminishes Cliff's professional prospects or seals its fate entirely it will be a truly dismal end to a sad chapter in Kansas Basketball lore.
LOL! Perhaps I should not admit such blasphemies on this board.
In my defense, I did get to Allen last season for the OU game. Not to mention Kraftwerk hasn't been to KC since 1975. Being a bucket list item, I simply couldn't let the opportunity to see them live go by the wayside.
As for where I live, let's call it the "KC Area" ... an easy day trip to be sure.
@drgnslayr said:
Tickets go on sale today....
SO... WHO IS IN?
I wish I could answer in the affirmative. However, I splurged last week on primo tickets to see Kraftwerk. Does that make me a bad person?
!artworks-000015952405-6w9ei2-original.jpg ↗
Love Cheick, baby.
I'd add Jerod Haase to your energy guys list. Give me the two of them among a OAD or two and some hard-nosed seniors and I'd have to believe we'd be able to weather any opponent under almost any circumstances.
My feeling is the KU shirt to school on Friday means Ingram was at the end of his clothes cycle and all his other shirts were in the wash.
I also think the refs step in and send him to Duke.
I'd be more impressed if he could do that on just one nail.
It's great what Hudy does for these guys from a purely physical standpoint. She is one of the best, no doubt. I would be curious to know what kind of mental training our athletes do as well. Things like visualization have been shown to improve performance substantially.
If I recall, Greg Louganis, the US Olympic champion diver, spent a vast amount of time during training not actually diving at all, but rather visualizing his dives over and over from start to finish in his mind. I wonder if our team spends any time visualizing the ball going in the basket from different areas of the floor or visualizing correct footwork down on the block or sinking clutch free throws? I think our guys are generally prepared for battle physically, but maybe a little time spent on the mental aspect and visualization, if they don't do that already, could propel their overall on-court results into the stratosphere.
I used to live in Ft. Worth, but would head to Austin every now and then. You are right. Even 25 years ago, we would get accosted by people begging for money after the bars closed down, when everyone was in a compromised state of awareness.
My friends and I were there on my 21st b-day and, as we stumbled out of our last venue, I was approached by a girl who said she lived in a commune outside of town with 60 others. They were anti-government types and she was asking for a dollar if I supported the notion that our government was fraught with corruption. I told her I'd gladly give her a buck if she could cite specifics about why she thought our government was so evil. After spinning her wheels for a couple minutes, she could offer nothing more than "don't you think our government is corrupt?" I told her that our government may not be perfect by any stretch, but that if she were anywhere else in the world spewing her anti-government garbage she would have been shot dead in the streets long ago. She told me to "forget it" and stormed off in a huff.
We all had a good laugh about the incident and it's a silly story I can tell years later. For those that live and work in Austin, though, I can only imagine how much of a nuisance the day-to-day dealings with people like that can be. I'm sure it's much, much more prevalent now than when I roamed 6th Street all those years ago.
The worst thing I've seen panhandling-wise was a Boy Scout troop standing out in the median at a major intersection with buckets in hand asking for donations. For an organization that wears merit as badges of honor I couldn't find any merit in this situation. What ever happened to car washes and such? I mean, do SOMETHING to earn the right to ask for my money.
After college, I'd often tell someone "working for food" that I'd gladly buy them a meal since I was heading to a burger stand and my offers were invariably turned down. That's when I stopped offering as it became apparent it's not food they're after. How sad that the truly desperate now get dismissed because of the rather large number of people gaming the system and taking advantage of the kindness of strangers.
If Mizzou could ever win anything significant, I might dislike them more. As it stands, Duke not only wins, but over the years has put an end to our season more times than I'd like to acknowledge. Throw in the cheap shots, the free throw excesses, Archie Marshall's career-ending injury, Christian Laettner, more Plumlee brothers than the Baldwin clan and any number of Duke players whose faces I'd like to put my heel through (Quin Snyder, Cherokee Parks, Danny Ferry, Jon Sheyer, Steve Wojciechowski, etc.) and it's Duke in a landslide for me.
lol. great slogan! I hope your boy wore the shirt with the utmost pride and now has it framed.
The irony of my story? After college I lived in the Carolinas for 15 years and most of my good friends were Duke fans. Recently, my dentist suggested I get a bite guard to wear while sleeping because he thinks I grind my teeth at night. Frankly, I KNOW it's from 15 years of gritting my teeth around those ... "people". I just don't think he believes me. :)
@wissoxfan83 said:
I still can't get out of my mind the FT discrepancy in 1986 when we played puke in the final four.
I was 14 during our Final Four run that year and THAT was the game that cemented the knowledge that I had become a die-hard Jayhawk fan and there was no turning back.
I can recall the flat top hair cuts, the red jerseys, lots of tears and lots cursing at the refs, the TV and the universe for the injustices I witnessed in that game. I remember being so incensed after the final buzzer sounded I stormed upstairs to my room only to pause in the hallway and put my heel through the wall in a fit of rage. (My dad subsequently put his foot through my posterior for such ridiculous behavior).
It was also the moment my hatred for all things Duke bubbled up to the surface. Not even Missouri can surpass the amount of disdain I have for that team from Durham. Duke is far and away my most despised team in college basketball and it's not close. The fact that they still seem to get all the calls, get all the bounces to go their way and lead an all-around charmed existence chaps me to the core. It just never seems like they win on their own merit, even though they consistently pull in the talent to do so. Anytime Duke loses, it's a banner day for me. I was pulling hard for your boys this season, but I guess even skill and experience are no match for serendipity.
C'est la vie.
Great stuff, man. Very enjoyable read. Thanks so much for sharing!
@drgnslayr said:
You know this goes on.
I prefer not to talk in absolutes about topics on which I'm not an expert ... especially on this board of exceptionally knowledgeable individuals, but I'd long suspected as such based on things I've read and witnessed during Olympic coverage. And I'd certainly not quibble with you on the subject, with your having spent time playing professionally overseas and getting a first-hand account of such things.
What's interesting about Yao is he didn't want to play basketball. In fact, according to accounts, he didn't even like the sport in the early going. As with so many totalitarian regimes, though, people have a way of miraculously coming to their senses.
@HighEliteMajor said:
Man, with all this shoeco stuff, I'm surprised they aren't manufacturing 7 footers.
Read up on Yao Ming. There's some pretty interesting stuff about his being a product of an "encouraged" marriage between his biological parents, his mom standing 6'3" and his dad 6'7", and a purported Chinese athletic breeding program bordering on eugenics that attempted to produce athletes with physical properties geared to certain sports.
I wouldn't necessarily take the speculative nature of the stories about Yao's genesis as gospel, but I wouldn't doubt there have been some shenanigans attempted with respect to genetic propensity over the years by Soviet Bloc countries and other Communist entities who were trying to create a superior athlete.
Great info. Did everyone imbibe in alcoholic beverages during the informal with Self? Could you imagine the info he might let out of the "vault" if he got a little snockered?
Also, was admission to the event pricey? Maybe we should set up a Go Fund Me page every year to raise money for one of us nosey parkers to rub elbows with Bill and hound him with difficult and dangerous questions. It would be excellent fodder for conversation to be sure.
Great pic of Perry in action above, but couldn't the powers that be have photo-shopped out the cotton swab from Perry's nostril? lol! Usually, bandages, braces and wraps make players look battle-tested. Somehow, anything up the nose looks like a wayward crayon.
@nuleafjhawk said:
Is this shoe thing really a ............THING?
Unfortunately, brand loyalty is a thing - a real thing and it is, in my opinion, what makes the shoe sponsorship of teams so sinister at their core. I'd be willing to bet that of all the accoutrements that make up an athletic uniform the shoes are the things that kids (and anyone for that matter) would be least willing to compromise.
I don't think it's necessarily a hipness thing or cache sort of thing (though I'm sure there is a component to that) so much as a comfort thing. Case in point: my dad. In his younger days, my dad was an avid runner. He would only wear New Balance brand shoes as they were the only brand he found that had a wide enough toe. I can't tell you how many times he lost the big toenail on either foot before discovering New Balance. From that point on, he refused to buy any other type of running shoe, understandably so.
My point is simply that there are reasons people buy Pepsi instead of Coke; why people are Mac devotees instead of Windows users; why people drive a Ford instead of a Chevy. It's a personal choice and it's awfully difficult to sway those choices once an allegiance has been developed. It's why advertisers spend such an inordinate amount of money trying to influence us.
Interestingly, the reasons for brand loyalty are not always completely rational. If Wade Boggs taught me anything about baseball, it's that superstition also plays a huge part in sports. If memory serves, he ate chicken before every game because of a particularly successful game early in his career after such a meal. If a kid has worn Nike shoes his whole life and has experienced success, he may not want to jeopardize that success by changing any part of his routine, including what shoes he wears. The old Spike Lee/Mars Blackmon Nike ads spoke to this with the "Is it the shoes?" refrain.
I'm not saying it's right or that I like the shoe monopolies, but there is definitely a "thing" there. Maybe the solution is to get Pepsi or Coke to sponsor college athletics and let the kids wear whatever shoes they are comfortable wearing. Then, perhaps, we would see fewer college choices being dictated by footwear and more by things that most of us would look for in a school: coaches, academics, atmosphere, fan base, etc. Of course, instead of the hat ceremony at press conferences, we would then be subject to the Pepsi challenge. I think I could live with that.
I'm not a board "heavyweight" by any stretch, but my feeling is that Perry is a smart kid and he has a good family behind him and they're exhibiting that intelligence and due diligence by checking out all their options. I, too, get the sense that Perry wants to play his senior year, but I think it would be derelict for him not to talk to those in the know to gauge draft interest and make the most informed decision.
A little part of me, however, thinks that watching him crumple to the floor this season with a knee injury, despite it not being career-ending, perhaps spurred him and his family to check the grass on the other side of the fence a little quicker than anticipated. Kind of a reminder of the fickle nature of fate and how fast everything Perry has worked for could come to a screeching halt at the stomp of a foot.
I know we've skirted the topic of whether or not our current coaching staff leans too heavily to the recruitment side of the basketball equation versus the development side, but I wonder whether or not some of these players (Greene, Selden, Alexander, etc.) have simply reached their level of competency?
The NBA drafts on potential, but aren't these kids given scholarships essentially based on potential as well? The road to riches is littered with NBA prospects who, by all accounts, had what it took to make it at that level but didn't or couldn't. So, why is it we automatically assume that a great high school hoops player will continue to develop and get better in college?
It sure seems like we've pulled in our fair share of highly-ranked guys lately who, for whatever reason, haven't showed much improvement after a couple years in our system. You have to wonder why. Were they ranked too highly? Not developed properly? Or have they simply reached the point where potential is no longer a consideration; They are what they are. I understand recruiting is probably an inexact science, especially when you're dealing with young kids, but if a guy is highly ranked by numerous services you have to believe it's not haphazard in nature. You have to believe that if it walks and talks like a duck that it is a duck. Yet we seem to have an inordinate number of guys who can't seem to improve. Is that on the player or on the coach?
I recall reading the story of Frank Mason's recruitment. I think it was coach Townsend who had gone to visit another potential recruit, but watched as Mason continually torched the guy. Right then, Townsend knew that Mason was the guy he wanted. As we all know, Mason is one guys who has progressed as a player and it seems like he still has a pretty high ceiling. So, was it just raw ability that impressed Townsend or did he see something else in Mason? Perhaps it is that something else that our coaches should be looking for in potential recruits, beyond the stats and the rankings.
I can't believe I'm about to type this because I agree the officiating has been atrocious of late and I'm not a big fan of muscle ball, but could the cheap-shotting and physical nature of the game actually benefit smaller, less-talented schools, giving them literally a puncher's chance against a Kentucky or a Duke?
In major pro sports, a salary cap was instituted to level the playing field and to prevent teams from buying up all the available talent. In the OAD done era where there are precious few safeguards in place other than roster size to prevent Kentucky from "buying" up all the talent, perhaps allowing more physical play is a viable, though perhaps misguided, way to try level the playing field some. I mean, if you're a team full of sub-footers and you can't outrun, out-jump, or out-anything the other team, getting physical may be the only countermeasure you have to neutralize the opponent. Again, I don't like it but perhaps it's a necessary evil arising out of the concentration of basketball wealth in the hands of a few teams and the need for high ratings and advertising dollars, things that I can only imagine are severely crimped by the specter of blowout games.
@BeddieKU23 said:
I’m realistic to know we’re going to have a guy or two leave,”
I wonder if Self is referring only to players.
Agreed. In the NBA they talk of the rookie wall. The freshman wall is a reality too. So, combine a challenging offensive system with young players who are not used to playing so many games and a schedule rated possibly the toughest in the history of scheduling in the RPI era and you've got a recipe for tired legs and bodies at the end of the season. Throw in an ineligibility here, a bum knee there, a back-up player getting starters minutes and you've got yourself one volatile mix at a critical time of the season. Unfortunately that concoction blew up in our faces yesterday. Not an excuse, mind you, just the reality of it.
I'm not going to rehash the game as we all saw what happened. I will say this about the refs: no, it's not their fault we lost, but I would suggest that the huge disparity in number of calls going against us early really tempered our aggressiveness. When you play worrying about fouling out instead of getting in front of your guy, it does affect what you do. I'm not suggesting we would have won if things had been called more evenly early on, but it certainly would have changed how the guys defended.
As for the bigger picture with this team, my first thought is scheduling. More specifically, the extremely high level of difficulty from the start of non-con all the way through the conference tourney. I understand wanting the guys to be battle-tested and I understand the need to take into account RPI and all that stuff as far as March seeding goes, but I don't know if I can make the argument that we were better off as a #2 seed. I might have rather been a #3 or maybe even a #4 seed that still had some energy and some working ligaments to make a run.
I don't want to turn this into a political statement, so please don't construe this example as my pushing some political agenda, but the economist Arthur Laffer postulated his Laffer curve to show how tax rates affect revenues. Long story short, there is a point of diminishing returns where too much taxation actually results in declining revenues. Carrying this over to KU basketball, is too tough a schedule actually creating a point of diminishing returns? Have we reached a point where the gauntlet is too tough, too demanding and too steep to produce positive results? I'm not saying we need to throttle a bunch of patsies, but the season is grueling and long as it is. It would be nice to catch our collective breaths once in a while with a blow out win against a nobody. So, instead of losing to Temple by 25, we beat up on the Red Hat Society All-Stars, expend less energy, walk out with a W and we don't get beat up in the process.
My only other major concern is the OAD era. IMO, one of two things has to give here. We either go full bore into it and Self changes his coaching philosophy or we go for 3 and 4 year kids who will be here long enough to learn the complexities of Self's coaching system. Right now we've got two competing ideals butting heads and it's causing some dissonance.
All in all, I'm still bummed about yesterday and it'll take me a bit of time to move past the loss as I tend to take these harder than I probably should. I keep telling myself to invest less emotionally during the games, but I've continually failed on that front for as long as I can recall. In my real life, I can do something to change my circumstances. As a fan, I'm totally powerless to change anything about the outcome and that's what gets me the most.
Thanks to all you guys and gals for offering a huge shoulder to cry on and to the creators of this forum for the opportunity to speak freely about all things KU. It truly is good therapy.
Rock Chalk to everyone!
ISU:
36.9% shooting as a team
6-23 from 3-point land
outrebounded 51-34 including 18-9 on the offensive boards
Niang: 4-15 from the floor for 11 points.
Again, typical. I thought I heard a stat that Niang has averaged 20 points against us in his three year career so far, yet he can only muster 11 points in a feeble performance.
I'm ambivalent on this one too. I want to see our conference put in a good showing, but, well ... what you said. Typical. Play the game of their lives against us then flame out early in the big tourney. It'll be up to KU to carry the Big 12 torch as far as they can after the bulk of our conference teams bow out in the first round as usual.
Congrats to Jerod Haase.
Just to clarify the timeline here. The repost of the original Slant post was about 9 hours ago, which means the original was sometime before that and most likely before the team left for Omaha. I know Cliff is not currently with the team in Omaha, but we may have a second game there ...
Also, there was speculation here and elsewhere that Cliff's mom/parents were stonewalling the process, something that this post suggests is not the case. Again, I don't know if there's any truth to it, but it's still an interesting development if it happened.
I just nicked this nugget from the "other" site. It was a re-posted comment that was originally written by a poster named Ransam at The Slant. Granted, the comment may be from the horse's mouth or it may be horsesh*t, but it was interesting no less. According to Ransam:
"Cliff had a meeting today at 3 o'clock with the NCAA and It ended at 6pm. In attendance was his mom, dad, and cliff. Not sure if anybody else was there besides the NCAA. The issue is about $50,000 and it involves his mom. His father or cliff knew nothing about it. One of the major issue is if his mom gave Cliff any money or bought him anything using that money, and if he knew where the money came from when she bought it for him. That is Why cliff has already provided bank receipts and personal phone statements.
Any personal decisions made about Cliff basketball career will be handled by Cliff and his father, his mom is not involved going forward in regards to Cliff's basketball career. From what it sounded like, she may not even be welcomed at his games. Although that I'm not clear on.
It is possible that a decision could be reached as early as tomorrow and Cliff could possibly fly out and be with the team in Omaha."
If true, this is fascinating and sad all at once in a tabloid sort of way, especially if Cliff is ultimately not cleared to play and his career at Kansas is over. I would certainly love for Cliff to be involved in the post-season. I guess the question is: if he is cleared and if he does return does that positively or negatively affect team psyche and chemistry considering the team has been preparing for basketball life without him? It's a potentially positive development, but a distraction is a distraction, something a young, inconsistent team doesn't need on the eve of tourney play.
I'll be skipping your posts from now on. I had no idea you were so wrong about so many things.
Kidding! :)
What really surprised me about Jesse's article is that, according to Kenpom, trailing by 9 points to OSU with over 6 minutes left in the first half gave us only a 19% chance to win. Further, down only 5 to UT with over 14 minutes left in the second half and we only have a 16% chance to win?
That seems awfully bad odds considering the point differential and the seemingly enormous amount of time left in both scenarios. I'd be interested to know what factors were taken in consideration to assess the odds. Quality of opponent? Rank? Home vs. Away? Something else? I mean, if I knew we only had a 16% to win a game on the road, down only 5 with only 5 minutes gone in the second half, I could have saved myself a lot of wear and tear on my nerves and simply tuned out, figuring we don't have much of a chance. I'd never do that, of course, but the likelihood of a win in those two examples still seems too low.
"No, I'm pretty sure the Y-M-C-A goes like this."
@statmachine I get the whole philisophical debate and I'm with you on that, but I'm wondering if perhaps Snacks brings a calming influence to the players when Bill is affixing butt to bench for the most minor of infractions. Maybe CH builds a little confidence in the players when Self is tearing it down. Maybe he takes a little time and explains the game plan in simpler terms or in language the players can better understand. Perhaps he offers words of encouragement at critical times or reminds players of little things that get glossed over in timeouts. I don't know what effect his absence has had exactly, if any. I'm merely trying to spur discussion. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this team plays upon his return and whether any dots can be connected.
When assistant coach Howard was suspended prior to the Baylor game because of indiscretions involving recreational substances, there was a lot of spirited discussion involving the moral, social and legal ramifications of his behavior, especially in light of the fact his job centers on the mentoring of highly impressionable college kids. There was also much speculation as to whether or not Snacks should/would lose his job. As we all know, Coach Howard received a 2-week suspension and, if I'm not mistaken, is due to return to the bench for the Texas game.
It seems to me that, in all of the back and forth on this board about CH after the Baylor game, someone raised the question of whether or not Snacks' absence from the team affected our performance. Recall: we were on the verge of being blown out at home by Baylor in the first half, getting down by 13 points or so before recovering a pulling out the win. The question was never fully tackled on this board and I don't recall seeing any post referencing the inquiry since. If it's there, my apologies. Since the CH suspension and Baylor win, KU has lost 2 of 3 and has looked lifeless, listless and downright terrible in stretches despite having so much to play for.
So, I raise the question again for further discussion: Has Coach Howard's absence affected this team more than anyone is letting on, or are there simply too many variables (i.e. normal ebb and flow of a season, home vs. away games, quality of opponent, etc.) and too much statistical "noise" to suggest as such?
@jaybate-1.0 said:
Again, Weber just used Self's strategy on us and his guys played harder and longer than our guys did on defense.
Agreed. The way the KSU guys were denying our 3-pt. shooters in the first half I told myself they would be gassed midway through the second half. It didn't happen. They did a fine job last night and sometimes, as painful as it is, you just have to tip your cap.
Your reply to @DoubleDD in the aftermath last night was a great read BTW.
Not to sound flippant or dredge up old heartbreaks, but what did the title "Conference Champs" get us come tournament time in years past? Sure, we've had some deep runs and a national title, but it seems to me that teams like UConn and a few others, plus the parity in college b-ball (Kentucky notwithstanding), have shown that there is less of a connection between regular season performance and March Madness than I used to think. That doesn't mean that losing to sub-.500 teams and struggling to topple conference bottom feeders is any less disconcerting. But, I don't necessarily think it is foolproof predictor of post-season success.
That said, what makes our run of 10 straight conference championships so amazing, aside from the OAD era and all that, is that EVERYBODY knew at the beginning of the run and now what we were going to do on the court and we simply dared people to stop it. It's one thing for an opponent to know what's coming and quite another to be able to do anything about it. As has been pointed out many, many times during the season we simply don't have the personnel, the experience and maybe the swagger of years past and it's evident that the "this-is-who-we-are-now-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it?" approach has to change to better suit our strengths. The fact that Self seems unwilling to do that is why I'm upset at what's transpiring lately as I know a few others are too.
Yes, I'll be sad should the streak end, but I wouldn't write this team off for another conference title or a good showing in the Big Dance just yet.
@KUSTEVE Thanks. I thought the film was good too, though replacing the punctuation marks with real eyes bothered me at first. Also, I have a tough time adjusting to voice-overs because I hear the characters differently in my head after reading the books hundreds of times since I was a kid. Still, I think Herge would have been pleased with Spielberg's adaptation.
Oh yeah, and I like KU basketball. lol.!
@wissoxfan83, At least you didn't have Harry Belafonte ringing in your head the whole time as I did.
"6-point ... 7-point ... 8-point ... CHOKE!
Big lead come and me give it right back"
Brutal.
Daily reader/frequent lurker/occasional contributor/first-time thread creator here.
So, if memory serves (and that's debatable), in the first meeting between KU and KSU at Allen Fieldhouse, Bruce Weber had a bit of a meltdown after an early time-out in the first half. Disgusted at the lack of inspired play against an in-state rival, Weber threw his clipboard to the hardwood and proceeded to rip into his team, his face turning a semi-eggplant hue not unlike a certain KU coach I know when he's angry. His reaction was so unlike Bruce Weber that even the announcers were taken aback by his bombastic display, making a comment to that effect.
Assuming for the sake of this post that Weber in indeed on thin ice as coach of KSU and is looking at this as a must-win, and assuming that KU eventually takes care of business, just what kind of fireworks do you think we might see out of Weber should KSU come out flat or fade down the stretch? Does he go all Earl Weaver on is team, screaming nose-to-nose in a spittle fight to the death? Does he do his best Bob Knight imitation, hurling a piece of unbolted furniture across the court? Does he channel Latrell Sprewell and pretend every member of his team looks like PJ Carlesimo's throat? Or does he reprise Ron Artest's lowest of many career low points and lunge into the stands to attack the first fan he sees decked out in crimson or blue?
For me, the most disheartening part of the loss was the lack of fundamentals that contributed to the lopsided score. I don't like to invoke baseball on a KU basketball board, but the Royals' success this season was in great part to consistency on three fronts: solid starting pitching, airtight defense and a lock down bullpen. Most people understood that those three things HAD to be there almost every game to give the offense a chance to get that timely hit, which would ultimately produce a "W".
For KU to pull off a win against a team like UK, missed blockout assignments on errant free throws cannot happen. 15-27 from the line cannot happen. Things as "simple" as drive and dish and hustle plays have to be there. Do I think that being fundamentally sound would have altered the outcome? Probably not. UK's talent and size are off the charts and we didn't shoot particularly well. And the latter is probably due to the former. However, the fundamentals simply HAVE to be there if this team is going to have a chance at winning a game like that.
That said, champions are not crowned in November as the old cliche goes and I hope the guys use this as motivation to work even harder. They still have a chance to reach all the goals they've set for themselves this season.
My favorite name in college BB is Grlenntys Chief Kickingstallionsims Jr. Played at Stetson and then Alabama St. a few years back.
And if I ever got a dog I was thinking of naming him Dog Shammdog, a mock reference to God Shammgod who played for Providence in the mid-90s. Another great albeit unfortunate moniker.
Disappointing loss. I really thought we'd come out smoking after sort of going through the motions against WVU. The most disappointing thing is that KSU gave us chance after chance to seize control of the game and we simply didn't or couldn't.
I realize we are young and that development is rarely 100% linear; fits and starts, peaks and valleys should be expected. However, I did not anticipate the level of regression I've witnessed over the past three games. And while defense or lack thereof seems to be one of the catalysts of our slack play it doesn't account for 11 missed free throws, 2-16 from beyond the arc, and a perplexing inability to put shots in from inside a foot. The fact that many on the boards in-game were blaming Traylor for this loss is unfair considering our shooting woes.
Yes, we were missing key front line pieces and Traylor's ill-timed benching didn't help but KSU looked like a MASH unit the entire second half and we still couldn't gain any traction. They were hurt, in foul trouble, sucking wind and about to go into overtime and we didn't capitalize.
This team is more than capable to make a run come March or flame-out early. I don't want to predict what will happen, but the last few games have definitely given me reason for concern. Here's hoping we pull it together soon.