goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: kso_FAN on March 09, 2011, 05:09:44 PM

Title: CU later
Post by: kso_FAN on March 09, 2011, 05:09:44 PM

The team I most wanted to play in the first round of the Big 12 tournament, and the game is finally here. CU has two very good players and Boyle has done a nice job, but given how K-State has played throughout February, this is simply a game we should win. Looking at the numbers, there really is no area where I can give CU an advantage, though K-State isn't really dominant in any category either.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F03%2Fksuvscubig12tournament1.png&hash=e36753d3ea90ab78a10f7824a07a5eef987c7349)

When you look at the 2 games this year, I agree with what Underwood said on 810, you pretty much can throw out the only loss in the OOD of the season. This is simply a much different team, and I do not expect to see a performance that resembles that game.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F03%2Fksuvscubig12tournament2.png&hash=4827ceead108170d172b93fa9a8310411ccc3f1e)

However, in the 2nd game we outplayed CU in many phases but we had Pullen's worst offensive game in Big 12 play. Its no surprise it was also the team's worst shooting night and 2nd worst offensive efficiency game of the Big 12 season. Only CU's advantage in eFG% allowed them to win that game, and even then, only by a finger tip in Boulder.

I expect the Cats to win this game, likely pulling away late. CU's talent will keep them in it, but after a hard fought win today, I don't think they can compete with K-State for 40 minutes if we play like we have lately. CU just doesn't play good enough defense and we have too big of an advantage on the boards to let this one get away. Plus I'm not expecting a repeat of the shooting we saw in the first two CU games, 2 of our 3 worst shooting nights in Big 12 play.

Cats 82 - Buffs 73

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: SwiftCat on March 09, 2011, 05:13:31 PM

 :emawkid:

fear the beard. geaux q@z

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Panjandrum on March 09, 2011, 05:14:48 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 09, 2011, 05:09:44 PM

I expect the Cats to win this game, likely pulling away late. CU's talent will keep them in it, but after a hard fought win today, I don't think they can compete with K-State for 40 minutes if we play like we have lately. CU just doesn't play good enough defense and we have too big of an advantage on the boards to let this one get away. Plus I'm not expecting a repeat of the shooting we saw in the first two CU games, 2 of our 3 worst shooting nights in Big 12 play.

That and we're completely fresh while Higgins and Burks both played 35+ minutes.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: wetwillie on March 09, 2011, 05:15:11 PM

ANGER LEVELS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH :curse:     Going to be very satisfying to crush them.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kso_FAN on March 09, 2011, 05:19:41 PM

Quote from: Panjandrum on March 09, 2011, 05:14:48 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 09, 2011, 05:09:44 PM

I expect the Cats to win this game, likely pulling away late. CU's talent will keep them in it, but after a hard fought win today, I don't think they can compete with K-State for 40 minutes if we play like we have lately. CU just doesn't play good enough defense and we have too big of an advantage on the boards to let this one get away. Plus I'm not expecting a repeat of the shooting we saw in the first two CU games, 2 of our 3 worst shooting nights in Big 12 play.

That and we're completely fresh while Higgins and Burks both played 35+ minutes.

Limiting Higgins and Burks will be big, but Knutson killed us just as much as those two.

8-11 from 3 in our 2 games and scored 36 total points.

Burks scored 20 total. Higgins scored 26 total.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. Cats by 12.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 09, 2011, 05:56:16 PM

gotta freeze out knutson like they did christo in the last isu game.  christo is harder to guard, and they completely shut him out, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 09, 2011, 05:56:57 PM

Quote from: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season.

not if you've already won the first two.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: yoga-like_abana on March 09, 2011, 05:57:44 PM

Bet they come out and want it more.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: KSUTOMMY on March 09, 2011, 05:58:48 PM

No way we lose this one, no way.

pheer the beer'd. geaux q@z

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: nicname on March 09, 2011, 06:12:56 PM

Hope it goes a lot like this beginning of this video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmAAZaokBF8

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: chum1 on March 09, 2011, 06:49:04 PM

Let's look at the numbers:  CU 2, KSU 0.  Bad match up for us.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: gatoveintisiete on March 09, 2011, 06:57:45 PM

Absolutely hate playing teams with three guys that can shoot it, two of which can drive it like all-americans.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: WillieWatanabe on March 09, 2011, 07:07:33 PM

nice title _FAN.

:cheers:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: SwiftCat on March 09, 2011, 10:00:16 PM

Quote from: nicname on March 09, 2011, 06:12:56 PM

Hope it goes a lot like this beginning of this video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmAAZaokBF8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVEIeD91vIc

 :bawl:

Last year's team was so much fun

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:08:56 PM

Is that what you said after the first 2 times that you beat Colorado this year...oh wait... :bait:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: GoodForAnother on March 09, 2011, 11:14:45 PM

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:08:56 PM

Is that what you said after the first 2 time that you beat Colorado this year...oh wait... :bait:

is this real life

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: 0.42 on March 09, 2011, 11:17:10 PM

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:08:56 PM

Is that what you said after the first 2 times that you beat Colorado this year...oh wait... :bait:

bro, chill

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 09, 2011, 11:17:29 PM

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:08:56 PM

Is that what you said after the first 2 times that you beat Colorado this year...oh wait... :bait:

ask the lady clones

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: WillieWatanabe on March 09, 2011, 11:17:51 PM

goddamnit havs.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:20:19 PM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on March 09, 2011, 11:17:51 PM

goddamnit havs.

The fact that i'm being associated with that person...due to the same fanbase...is embarrassing...its like trying to distance yourself from Jim Woolridge.... :facepalm:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 09, 2011, 11:22:07 PM

Quote from: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. Cats by 12.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if you look at every 3rd matchup between basketball teams in the same season in the last 20 years that where one team has won the first 2 games, that team will also win the 3rd game more than 50% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the team won the 3rd game more than 70% of the time. In reality, it's hard to beat a team that has already beaten you twice.

Cats win 72-60.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: 0.42 on March 09, 2011, 11:22:53 PM

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:20:19 PM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on March 09, 2011, 11:17:51 PM

goddamnit havs.

The fact that i'm being associated with that person...due to the same fanbase...is embarrassing...its like trying to distance yourself from Jim Woolridge.... :facepalm:

all iowans are exactly the same person

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Panjandrum on March 09, 2011, 11:23:30 PM

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:20:19 PM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on March 09, 2011, 11:17:51 PM

goddamnit havs.

The fact that i'm being associated with that person...due to the same fanbase...is embarrassing...its like trying to distance yourself from Jim Woolridge.... :facepalm:

Yes, because you've certainly taken us by storm with your wit and charisma.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 09, 2011, 11:25:13 PM

Quote from: 42 on March 09, 2011, 11:22:53 PM

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:20:19 PM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on March 09, 2011, 11:17:51 PM

goddamnit havs.

The fact that i'm being associated with that person...due to the same fanbase...is embarrassing...its like trying to distance yourself from Jim Woolridge.... :facepalm:

all iowans are exactly the same person

Same brain.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:27:32 PM

from the wisdom of Charles Barkley, "that's just turrible!"

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 09, 2011, 11:34:30 PM

Quote from: Limestone on March 09, 2011, 11:25:13 PM

Same brain.

same lumpy, doughy body, same fetid cheese curd breath, same pasty skin and jet black back hair, same vapid confused gaze.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:37:12 PM

Quote from: sys on March 09, 2011, 11:34:30 PM

Quote from: Limestone on March 09, 2011, 11:25:13 PM

Same brain.

same lumpy, doughy body, same fetid cheese curd breath, same pasty skin and jet black back hair, same vapid confused gaze.

are you describing China?

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 09, 2011, 11:40:17 PM

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:37:12 PM

are you describing China?

der, der, der.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: MadCat on March 09, 2011, 11:42:02 PM

 :opcat:

Quote from: CloneBroChill on March 09, 2011, 11:37:12 PM

Quote from: sys on March 09, 2011, 11:34:30 PM

Quote from: Limestone on March 09, 2011, 11:25:13 PM

Same brain.  :opcat:

  :opcat:

same lumpy, doughy body, same fetid cheese curd breath, same pasty skin and jet black back hair, same vapid confused gaze.

  :opcat:
are you describing China?  :opcat:

  :opcat:  :opcat:  :opcat:  :opcat:
 :opcat:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: TheBigHomie on March 09, 2011, 11:46:12 PM

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on March 09, 2011, 11:22:07 PM

Quote from: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. Cats by 12.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if you look at every 3rd matchup between basketball teams in the same season in the last 20 years that where one team has won the first 2 games, that team will also win the 3rd game more than 50% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the team won the 3rd game more than 70% of the time. In reality, it's hard to beat a team that has already beaten you twice.

Cats win 72-60.

I did this earlier, I came up with 42-23 record that the team wins the 3rd game as well, based on Big 12 Tournament History:

1995   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1995   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1995   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1995   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1995   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1996   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1996   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1996   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1996   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1996   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1997   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1997   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1997   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1997   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1997   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1998   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1998   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1998   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1998   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1998   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1999   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1999   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1999   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1999   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1999   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2000   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2000   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2000   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2000   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2000   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2001   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2001   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2001   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2001   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2001   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2002   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2002   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2002   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2002   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2002   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2003   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2003   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2003   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2003   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2003   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2004   KU   W   Missouri   94-69
2004   Tex   W   Oklahoma   66-63
2004   OSU   W   Texas   65-49
2005   KU   W   Kansas St.   80-67
2005   MU   W   Nebraska   70-67
2005   OSU   W   Texas Tech   72-68
2006   KU   W   Nebraska   79-65
2006   Tex   W   Texas Tech   77-70
2007   KU   W   Kansas St.   67-61
2007   Tex   W   Baylor   74-69
2007   A&M   L   Oklahoma St.   57-56
2008   KU   W   Nebraska   64-54
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma St.   66-59
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma   77-49
2009   Tex   L   Baylor   76-70
2009   A&M   L   Texas Tech   88-83
2009   OU   L   Oklahoma St.   71-70
2010   KU   W   Kansas St.   72-64
2010   MU   L   Nebraska   75-60
2010   Bay   W   Texas   86-67

(Used Kenpom for historical results)

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: MakeItRain on March 09, 2011, 11:47:46 PM

I'll donate a nut if CU scores 73 points.

79-60

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 09, 2011, 11:51:54 PM

Quote from: TheBigHomie on March 09, 2011, 11:46:12 PM

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on March 09, 2011, 11:22:07 PM

Quote from: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. Cats by 12.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if you look at every 3rd matchup between basketball teams in the same season in the last 20 years that where one team has won the first 2 games, that team will also win the 3rd game more than 50% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the team won the 3rd game more than 70% of the time. In reality, it's hard to beat a team that has already beaten you twice.

Cats win 72-60.

I did this earlier, I came up with 42-23 record that the team wins the 3rd game as well, based on Big 12 Tournament History:

1995   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1995   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1995   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1995   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1995   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1996   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1996   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1996   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1996   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1996   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1997   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1997   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1997   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1997   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1997   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1998   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1998   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1998   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1998   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1998   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1999   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1999   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1999   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1999   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1999   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2000   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2000   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2000   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2000   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2000   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2001   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2001   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2001   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2001   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2001   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2002   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2002   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2002   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2002   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2002   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2003   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2003   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2003   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2003   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2003   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2004   KU   W   Missouri   94-69
2004   Tex   W   Oklahoma   66-63
2004   OSU   W   Texas   65-49
2005   KU   W   Kansas St.   80-67
2005   MU   W   Nebraska   70-67
2005   OSU   W   Texas Tech   72-68
2006   KU   W   Nebraska   79-65
2006   Tex   W   Texas Tech   77-70
2007   KU   W   Kansas St.   67-61
2007   Tex   W   Baylor   74-69
2007   A&M   L   Oklahoma St.   57-56
2008   KU   W   Nebraska   64-54
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma St.   66-59
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma   77-49
2009   Tex   L   Baylor   76-70
2009   A&M   L   Texas Tech   88-83
2009   OU   L   Oklahoma St.   71-70
2010   KU   W   Kansas St.   72-64
2010   MU   L   Nebraska   75-60
2010   Bay   W   Texas   86-67

(Used Kenpom for historical results)

Thank you. If I have to listen to one more dumbass tell me we are going to win because "It's hard to beat a team 3 times," I will punch him in the face.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Trim on March 09, 2011, 11:58:38 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on March 09, 2011, 11:47:46 PM

I'll donate a nut if CU scores 73 points.

79-60

Thanks, bro.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kso_FAN on March 09, 2011, 11:59:55 PM

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on March 09, 2011, 11:51:54 PM

Thank you. If I have to listen to one more dumbass tell me we are going to win because "It's hard to beat a team 3 times," I will punch him in the face.

I agree with this point. More often than not, the team that sweeps a season home and home is simply a lot better basketball team, usually it shows up in most statistical categories. With CU and us, that is simply not the case, though we could very well lose #3. But generally in the grand scheme of things things even out and the better teams wins. I think that will happen tomorrow.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: MakeItRain on March 10, 2011, 12:10:37 AM

Quote from: Trim on March 09, 2011, 11:58:38 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on March 09, 2011, 11:47:46 PM

I'll donate a nut if CU scores 73 points.

79-60

Thanks, bro.

don't really need them anymore

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 07:54:39 AM

don't understand the confidence against cu.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Cire on March 10, 2011, 07:59:04 AM

they have an NBA player on their team.  We don't.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Lamesauce on March 10, 2011, 08:09:42 AM

Quote from: Cire on March 10, 2011, 07:59:04 AM

they have an NBA player on their team.  We don't.

We have a player rated a 95 on our team. They don't.
Advantage: push

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Jmo on March 10, 2011, 08:17:46 AM

Quote from: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. Cats by 12.

Seriously hate this....it can be pretty easy to beat a team three rough ridin' times...

but.....

Wabashes - 79
Burks - 74

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 08:21:11 AM

Quote from: Cire on March 10, 2011, 07:59:04 AM

they have an NBA player on their team.  We don't.

exactly.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: 3leocat on March 10, 2011, 08:23:50 AM

Quote from: nicname on March 09, 2011, 06:12:56 PM

Hope it goes a lot like this beginning of this video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmAAZaokBF8

I miss Dom!

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 08:28:15 AM

Guys, this team barely beat Iowa State yesterday.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 10, 2011, 08:30:18 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 08:28:15 AM

Guys, this team barely beat Iowa State yesterday.

Doesn't everyone barely beat ISU?

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Gooch on March 10, 2011, 08:32:46 AM

Cats - 81
Buffs - 75
MIR - (-1 nut)

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: PoetWarrior on March 10, 2011, 08:35:19 AM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 08:21:11 AM

Quote from: Cire on March 10, 2011, 07:59:04 AM

they have an NBA player on their team.  We don't.

exactly.

"It's OK to talk to yourself as long as you don't answer."

-Edwin S.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:21:57 AM

Quote from: TheBigHomie on March 09, 2011, 11:46:12 PM

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on March 09, 2011, 11:22:07 PM

Quote from: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. Cats by 12.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if you look at every 3rd matchup between basketball teams in the same season in the last 20 years that where one team has won the first 2 games, that team will also win the 3rd game more than 50% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the team won the 3rd game more than 70% of the time. In reality, it's hard to beat a team that has already beaten you twice.

Cats win 72-60.

I did this earlier, I came up with 42-23 record that the team wins the 3rd game as well, based on Big 12 Tournament History:

1995   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1995   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1995   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1995   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1995   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1996   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1996   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1996   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1996   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1996   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1997   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1997   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1997   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1997   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1997   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1998   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1998   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1998   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1998   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1998   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1999   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1999   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1999   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1999   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1999   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2000   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2000   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2000   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2000   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2000   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2001   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2001   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2001   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2001   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2001   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2002   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2002   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2002   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2002   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2002   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2003   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2003   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2003   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2003   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2003   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2004   KU   W   Missouri   94-69
2004   Tex   W   Oklahoma   66-63
2004   OSU   W   Texas   65-49
2005   KU   W   Kansas St.   80-67
2005   MU   W   Nebraska   70-67
2005   OSU   W   Texas Tech   72-68
2006   KU   W   Nebraska   79-65
2006   Tex   W   Texas Tech   77-70
2007   KU   W   Kansas St.   67-61
2007   Tex   W   Baylor   74-69
2007   A&M   L   Oklahoma St.   57-56
2008   KU   W   Nebraska   64-54
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma St.   66-59
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma   77-49
2009   Tex   L   Baylor   76-70
2009   A&M   L   Texas Tech   88-83
2009   OU   L   Oklahoma St.   71-70
2010   KU   W   Kansas St.   72-64
2010   MU   L   Nebraska   75-60
2010   Bay   W   Texas   86-67

(Used Kenpom for historical results)

Looks like only complete crap teams get beat three times in one season, and it's usually by KU.  This chart confirms the theory!
 :emawkid:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 09:25:03 AM

Quote from: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:21:57 AM

Quote from: TheBigHomie on March 09, 2011, 11:46:12 PM

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on March 09, 2011, 11:22:07 PM

Quote from: samwise on March 09, 2011, 05:56:06 PM

It's pretty damn hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. Cats by 12.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if you look at every 3rd matchup between basketball teams in the same season in the last 20 years that where one team has won the first 2 games, that team will also win the 3rd game more than 50% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the team won the 3rd game more than 70% of the time. In reality, it's hard to beat a team that has already beaten you twice.

Cats win 72-60.

I did this earlier, I came up with 42-23 record that the team wins the 3rd game as well, based on Big 12 Tournament History:

1995   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1995   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1995   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1995   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1995   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1996   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1996   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1996   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1996   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1996   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1997   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1997   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1997   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1997   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1997   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1998   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1998   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1998   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1998   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1998   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
1999   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
1999   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
1999   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
1999   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
1999   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2000   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2000   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2000   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2000   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2000   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2001   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2001   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2001   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2001   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2001   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2002   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2002   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2002   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2002   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2002   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2003   KU   W   Iowa St.   89-74
2003   KU   L   Missouri   68-63
2003   MU   W   Nebraska   70-61
2003   Tex   L   Texas Tech   92-81
2003   OU   W   Texas Tech   67-60
2004   KU   W   Missouri   94-69
2004   Tex   W   Oklahoma   66-63
2004   OSU   W   Texas   65-49
2005   KU   W   Kansas St.   80-67
2005   MU   W   Nebraska   70-67
2005   OSU   W   Texas Tech   72-68
2006   KU   W   Nebraska   79-65
2006   Tex   W   Texas Tech   77-70
2007   KU   W   Kansas St.   67-61
2007   Tex   W   Baylor   74-69
2007   A&M   L   Oklahoma St.   57-56
2008   KU   W   Nebraska   64-54
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma St.   66-59
2008   Tex   W   Oklahoma   77-49
2009   Tex   L   Baylor   76-70
2009   A&M   L   Texas Tech   88-83
2009   OU   L   Oklahoma St.   71-70
2010   KU   W   Kansas St.   72-64
2010   MU   L   Nebraska   75-60
2010   Bay   W   Texas   86-67

(Used Kenpom for historical results)

Looks like only complete cac teams get beat three times in one season, and it's usually by KU.  This chart confirms the theory!
 :emawkid:

Did you just call K-State '09-'10 a "complete crap team?"   :facepalm:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:37:50 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 09:25:03 AM

Did you just call K-State '09-'10 a "complete crap team?"   :facepalm:

there are exceptions to every rule, Emo EMAW.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 09:43:10 AM

Duly noted.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 10, 2011, 09:47:32 AM

Quote from: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:37:50 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 09:25:03 AM

Did you just call K-State '09-'10 a "complete crap team?"   :facepalm:

there are exceptions to every rule, Emo EMAW.

Most of those Iowa State teams were tournament teams, and the Texas Tech teams in the Bob Knight era were pretty damned good. Not to mention 07-08 OU. But yeah, elite teams don't get swept in the regular season very often. Who would have thought that?

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: deputy dawg on March 10, 2011, 09:48:27 AM

Only wanted to add the cliche type stuff "Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out", etc.  'Cats are fresh, playing well, and focused.  Agree with the prediction they win by 12.  Would be awesome if the Buffs are not invited.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: CNS on March 10, 2011, 09:56:18 AM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on March 09, 2011, 11:17:51 PM

goddamnit havs.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:57:58 AM

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on March 10, 2011, 09:47:32 AM

Quote from: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:37:50 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 09:25:03 AM

Did you just call K-State '09-'10 a "complete crap team?"   :facepalm:

there are exceptions to every rule, Emo EMAW.

Most of those Iowa State teams were tournament teams, and the Texas Tech teams in the Bob Knight era were pretty damned good. Not to mention 07-08 OU. But yeah, elite teams don't get swept in the regular season very often. Who would have thought that?

Iowa state, nebraska, texas tech.  First thing I did when I printed that list out was cross all of their names off of it.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 10, 2011, 10:03:40 AM

Quote from: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:57:58 AM

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on March 10, 2011, 09:47:32 AM

Quote from: bradleigh on March 10, 2011, 09:37:50 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 09:25:03 AM

Did you just call K-State '09-'10 a "complete crap team?"   :facepalm:

there are exceptions to every rule, Emo EMAW.

Most of those Iowa State teams were tournament teams, and the Texas Tech teams in the Bob Knight era were pretty damned good. Not to mention 07-08 OU. But yeah, elite teams don't get swept in the regular season very often. Who would have thought that?

Iowa state, nebraska, texas tech.  First thing I did when I printed that list out was cross all of their names off of it.

K-State is 0-3 against teams that have already beaten them twice. :ohno:

Seriously, though, Iowa State was pretty much always a tournament team in the Floyd/Eustachy eras, and Tech also was a tournament team throughout the Bob Knight era. Nebraska is the only team that you can just assume is always shitty.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 11:01:55 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 08:28:15 AM

Guys, this team barely beat Iowa State yesterday.

We struggled to beat ISU less than a week ago, in the OOD.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 11:07:31 AM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 11:01:55 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 08:28:15 AM

Guys, this team barely beat Iowa State yesterday.

We struggled to beat ISU less than a week ago, in the OOD.

Whatevs, we didn't show up.  We'll show up today.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: SleepFighter on March 10, 2011, 11:12:43 AM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 11:01:55 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 08:28:15 AM

Guys, this team barely beat Iowa State yesterday.

We struggled to beat ISU less than a week ago, in the OOD.

meh.  Never dipped below 70% win probability.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 11:35:21 AM

Quote from: SleepFighter on March 10, 2011, 11:12:43 AM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 11:01:55 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 08:28:15 AM

Guys, this team barely beat Iowa State yesterday.

We struggled to beat ISU less than a week ago, in the OOD.

meh.  Never dipped below 70% win probability.

Our lead was only 1.2% "safe" with 3:13 to go.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Cire on March 10, 2011, 11:48:14 AM

Law of averages comes back to bite us in the ass

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: WillieWatanabe on March 10, 2011, 11:51:47 AM

Lots of haters in this thread.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: SleepFighter on March 10, 2011, 02:07:44 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 11:35:21 AM

Quote from: SleepFighter on March 10, 2011, 11:12:43 AM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 11:01:55 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on March 10, 2011, 08:28:15 AM

Guys, this team barely beat Iowa State yesterday.

We struggled to beat ISU less than a week ago, in the OOD.

meh.  Never dipped below 70% win probability.

Our lead was only 1.2% "safe" with 3:13 to go.

http://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=5080 (http://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=5080)

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 02:50:18 PM

idiots

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 03:53:28 PM

yeah, let's play CU.   

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: bigwillie20 on March 10, 2011, 03:55:46 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 03:53:28 PM

yeah, let's play CU.   

Jake is 5-16....and eff u

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: bigwillie20 on March 10, 2011, 03:55:46 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 03:53:28 PM

yeah, let's play CU.   

Jake is 5-16....and eff u

cause jake's reverting back to the old jake.  with cu, it's come full circle.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 03:59:51 PM

reminiscent under 4 minute meltdown.  just like old times.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: WillieWatanabe on March 10, 2011, 04:00:49 PM

grats zacker.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:01:31 PM

Quote from: WillieWatanabe on March 10, 2011, 04:00:49 PM

grats zacker.

WINNING

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: yoga-like_abana on March 10, 2011, 04:03:54 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on March 09, 2011, 11:47:46 PM

I'll donate a nut if CU scores 73 points.

Will you give Trim your donated nut?

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:13:47 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

seriously, i said this yesterday. Really looking forward to tomorrow  :facepalm:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: CloneBroChill on March 10, 2011, 04:18:12 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

Looks like Colorado just said "C-U later" to KSU.... :thumbsup:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:18:58 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

this.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: EMAWzified on March 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM

We're so lucky there' no buff who visit this board.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:20:08 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

yes we would have.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:21:01 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:20:08 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

yes we would have.

I'm depressed as crap too right now, but let's be realistic.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Havs on March 10, 2011, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:21:01 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:20:08 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

yes we would have.

I'm depressed as crap too right now, but let's be realistic.

We choked a lead to CU... you guys flat out LOST.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: WillieWatanabe on March 10, 2011, 04:22:31 PM

Quote from: Haverhill on March 10, 2011, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:21:01 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:20:08 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

yes we would have.

I'm depressed as crap too right now, but let's be realistic.

We choked a lead to CU... you guys flat out LOST.

ksu lead too?

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: PowercatPat on March 10, 2011, 04:23:13 PM

Why are ISU fans over here talking crap? JFC, do you guys realize how bad you were this year?

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: EllToPay on March 10, 2011, 04:23:52 PM

Quote from: Haverhill on March 10, 2011, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:21:01 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:20:08 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

yes we would have.

I'm depressed as crap too right now, but let's be realistic.

We choked a lead to CU... you guys flat out LOST.

my god, is being an isu fan that bad? this is what you have to resort to for smack talk?

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Please on March 10, 2011, 04:24:03 PM

CU LATER indeed.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:24:22 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

fortunately, we'll never know.  thanks to intelligent rooting by most fans yesterday.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:25:42 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

If you're indicating that we would have lost to isu, then you either understand that this team sucks and is reverting back to it's old/true self or are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  please choose.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: WildcatNkilt on March 10, 2011, 04:26:25 PM

Quote from: EMAWzified on March 10, 2011, 04:19:38 PM

We're so lucky there' no buff who visit this board.

They are hitting the slopes.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Havs on March 10, 2011, 04:26:40 PM

Gotta keep cheering for teams we beat this year.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 10, 2011, 04:29:35 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:20:08 PM

Quote from: AbeFroman on March 10, 2011, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

we wouldn't have lost to isu, so that means nothing

yes we would have.

We would have beaten ISU. It's very easy to beat a team you've already beaten twice a third time. The stats support it.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:31:03 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:25:42 PM

If you're indicating that we would have lost to cu, then you either understand that this team sucks and is reverting back to it's old/true self or are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  please choose.

i assume you meant isu.  if so, you outline a false dichotomy.  i can't believe you'd need someone to explain to you that a team that already lost nine games could lose a tenth.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:25:42 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

If you're indicating that we would have lost to isu, then you either understand that this team sucks and is reverting back to it's old/true self or are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  please choose.

simply regression to the mean. we'd played too well for too long. we were due, especially after four days off.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:38:52 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:31:03 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:25:42 PM

If you're indicating that we would have lost to cu, then you either understand that this team sucks and is reverting back to it's old/true self or are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  please choose.

i assume you meant isu.  if so, you outline a false dichotomy.  i can't believe you'd need someone to explain to you that a team that already lost nine games could lose a tenth.

i can't believe that losing to isu has the same probability of losing to cu.  it's not a coin flip.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kso_FAN on March 10, 2011, 04:39:03 PM

I was wrong. Way wrong.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:39:34 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:25:42 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

If you're indicating that we would have lost to isu, then you either understand that this team sucks and is reverting back to it's old/true self or are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  please choose.

simply regression to the mean. we'd played too well for too long. we were due, especially after four days off.

our mean is a below average team.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:41:12 PM

we got 16 f'ing more shots than them.  our defense was december/january-esque. 

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: 0.42 on March 10, 2011, 04:42:10 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 10, 2011, 04:39:03 PM

I was wrong. Way wrong.

I hate to bring out the "this team is a bad matchup for us" card when that's used pretty often by KU and MU fans for anytime they lose, but in this case, I think it's applicable. This team cannot handle guarding three really good shooters, especially if two of them are really athletic and can slice to the hole. Boyle's offense does a perfect job of spreading out the dobermanKATZ and isolating them to expose their weaknesses.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:42:34 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:39:34 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:36:19 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:25:42 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:13:58 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:11:41 PM

all of you are f'ing morons for wanting to face CU.  f 'ing morons.

this is much better than losing to isu.  lol @ you for never understanding that.

If you're indicating that we would have lost to isu, then you either understand that this team sucks and is reverting back to it's old/true self or are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  please choose.

simply regression to the mean. we'd played too well for too long. we were due, especially after four days off.

our mean is a below average team.

not below. just average.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:43:28 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:38:52 PM

i can't believe that losing to isu has the same probability of losing to cu.  it's not a coin flip.

it doesn't, of course.  but it wouldn't have been anywhere near zero.  and not all that different.  cu's kenpom was .8285 (60th), isu's was .7531 (76th).  two teams far more similar in quality than in perception, so the risk/reward selection was obvious.

it's just a shame we couldn't have played a&m or mu instead of either of them.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:45:47 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:42:34 PM

not below. just average.

significantly better than average, actually.  probably somewhere around 20-35th best out of 345 or so.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:45:47 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:42:34 PM

not below. just average.

significantly better than average, actually.  probably somewhere around 20-35th best out of 345 or so.

against the "field", 35 is under average.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:53:19 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:45:47 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on March 10, 2011, 04:42:34 PM

not below. just average.

significantly better than average, actually.  probably somewhere around 20-35th best out of 345 or so.

average as far as our elite program bro. :cheers:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kso_FAN on March 10, 2011, 04:53:42 PM

Match up is not great. Doesn't matter if you don't defend, rebound, or hit shots.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 04:55:41 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 10, 2011, 04:53:11 PM

against the "field", 35 is under average.

which is why making the tourney is so satisfying.  it is elite.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Panjandrum on March 10, 2011, 05:04:16 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 10, 2011, 04:53:42 PM

Match up is not great. Doesn't matter if you don't defend, rebound, or hit shots.

Kind of glad I didn't get to see this game.

looking at the box score, Burks and Higgins had great games.  Pullen didn't.

Colorado is hard to stop when both Burks and Higgins are on fire.  There's a reason they've done well against top50 teams.  We just seem to be vulnerable to their particular style.

Again, I didn't watch any of this, but making an observation based on watching CU earlier this year.

Maybe this will wake up the team again.  We won six in a row after losing to Colorado last time.  They seem to be our 'come back to Earth' team.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: chum1 on March 10, 2011, 05:22:35 PM

the bad match up idea shouldn't be dismissed.  in fact, the numbers for cu/ksu vs. the numbers for the rest of the season indicate that it applies here.  i don't know why that wouldn't be taken into consideration.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: theKSU on March 10, 2011, 05:26:41 PM

That was the team I least wanted to face.  Thanks _fan. 

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: kso_FAN on March 10, 2011, 05:35:24 PM

Quote from: chum1 on March 10, 2011, 05:22:35 PM

the bad match up idea shouldn't be dismissed.  in fact, the numbers for cu/ksu vs. the numbers for the rest of the season indicate that it applies here.  i don't know why that wouldn't be taken into consideration.

Probably denial on my part.

The thing is most teams don't hasn't 2 players who can drive you and score consistently, at least not against our defense. So Burks kills us on penetration in the first half. We counter and put our best defender on him and Jake shuts him down. But then we have no answer for Higgins.

For what its worth, neither did that in the first two games, not like today anyway. Some of that is probably changing up how we defended Knutson, who we handled well.

 

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: jr4cy on March 10, 2011, 05:42:50 PM

Quote from: Haverhill on March 10, 2011, 04:22:02 PM

We choked a lead to CU... you guys flat out LOST.

 :cheers: 

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: 0.42 on March 10, 2011, 05:43:25 PM

Quote from: jr4cy on March 10, 2011, 05:42:50 PM

Quote from: Haverhill on March 10, 2011, 04:22:02 PM

We choked a lead to CU... you guys flat out LOST.

 :cheers: 

oh jfc they're spawning

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: wetwillie on March 10, 2011, 06:08:50 PM

Frank got bitch slapped by Tad, glad it won't happen again

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 06:12:35 PM

Quote from: wetwillie on March 10, 2011, 06:08:50 PM

Frank got bitch slapped by Tad, glad it won't happen again

30% of kstate's annual losses were due to playing cu, and we're done playing them forever.  which means we just got either 30% or 70% better.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: MakeItRain on March 10, 2011, 08:39:48 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 10, 2011, 05:35:24 PM

Quote from: chum1 on March 10, 2011, 05:22:35 PM

the bad match up idea shouldn't be dismissed.  in fact, the numbers for cu/ksu vs. the numbers for the rest of the season indicate that it applies here.  i don't know why that wouldn't be taken into consideration.

Probably denial on my part.

Same, I feel really stupid because I said after loss #2 that it appears that Colorado is simply better than us, yet I still fell into the trap.

BTW Trim wouldn't take the nut, he said it would make him unbalanced and would interrupt his chi.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: sys on March 10, 2011, 08:48:03 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on March 10, 2011, 08:39:48 PM

BTW Trim wouldn't take the nut, he said it would make him unbalanced and would interrupt his chi.

offer the nut plus a bracelet.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Skipper44 on March 10, 2011, 09:09:18 PM

team with two guys that can jump up and make shots = bad match up

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: Trim on March 10, 2011, 09:23:31 PM

Quote from: sys on March 10, 2011, 08:48:03 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on March 10, 2011, 08:39:48 PM

BTW Trim wouldn't take the nut, he said it would make him unbalanced and would interrupt his chi.

offer the nut plus a bracelet.

Haven't you bros seen the nut jar?  I could never be as unbalanced as I was dragging that thing around.

But yeah, left-arm bracelet should make everything right.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: gatoveintisiete on March 10, 2011, 09:40:17 PM

Quote from: gatoveintisiete on March 09, 2011, 06:57:45 PM

Absolutely hate playing teams with three guys that can shoot it, two of which can drive it like all-americans.

 :peek:

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: hemmy on March 13, 2011, 05:41:59 PM

Haha, cu later, NIT losers.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: EMAWzified on March 13, 2011, 05:44:23 PM

Do the Big 12 proud and win that NIT.

Title: Re: CU later
Post by: WillieWatanabe on March 13, 2011, 05:51:40 PM

:lol: