goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Jerome Tang Coaches Kansas State Basketball => Topic started by: Spaces on January 23, 2012, 12:04:15 PM

Title: #22
Post by: Spaces on January 23, 2012, 12:04:15 PM
with another easy week ahead!  :ksu:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kso_FAN on January 23, 2012, 12:05:59 PM
And #24.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

And destroyed the #2 team.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: 'taterblast on January 23, 2012, 12:13:40 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: wes mantooth on January 23, 2012, 12:16:32 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year
Title: Re: #22
Post by: michigancat on January 23, 2012, 12:26:32 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kso_FAN on January 23, 2012, 12:27:00 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year
[/quote

Yeah. Kind of like officiating.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kougar24 on January 23, 2012, 12:29:42 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

Yep. We're still just not used to being a good program. Remember when we were fighting for 10th place in the final weeks of the Wooly years? Ugh.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: wes mantooth on January 23, 2012, 12:32:24 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

Mizzou isn't the #2 team, with one guy over 6'6 any other year.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: WillieWatanabe on January 23, 2012, 12:33:37 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

Mizzou isn't the #2 team, with one guy over 6'6 any other year.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg843.imageshack.us%2Fimg843%2F8676%2Fiseeu.png&hash=26369ba2e925248d7c573d2729fe27cb5bf56ec4)
Title: Re: #22
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 23, 2012, 12:34:05 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year

It's strange to me that people can think the overall talent level of more than 300 teams varies from year to year. It changes very little even on a conference by conference level.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kim carnes on January 23, 2012, 12:36:28 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

Mizzou isn't the #2 team, with one guy over 6'6 any other year.

They won't be anywhere near #2 at the end of the year, but I see your point.   And I also agree that this is a down year.  LOL at the big 12 having three of the top 6 teams.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: AbeFroman on January 23, 2012, 12:39:46 PM
suck it wisconsin!
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Skipper44 on January 23, 2012, 12:40:36 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

Yep. We're still just not used to being a good program. Remember when we were fighting for 10th place in the final weeks of the Wooly years? Ugh.
I would have killed for a 5th place finish with Wooly  :love: extra victory in 5-12 P66 game :love:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kso_FAN on January 23, 2012, 12:40:48 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: bigwillie20 on January 23, 2012, 12:48:41 PM
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
Title: Re: #22
Post by: CNS on January 23, 2012, 12:49:49 PM
MU's victory over Baylor says more about Baylor than MU to me.

The KU game ruined them and reverted them back to Baylor 1.0.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: ChiComCat on January 23, 2012, 01:07:01 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.
I don't think our conference has as strong of post players in years past.  T-Rob is up there, Jones is pretty good but just doesn't seem aggressive enough.  Thats helping Mizzou immensely this year.  Post matchups will really determine their run in the tourney and should be fun to watch
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Underdog Wildcat on January 23, 2012, 01:12:37 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.
I don't think our conference has as strong of post players in years past.  T-Rob is up there, Ellis is pretty good but just doesn't seem aggressive enough.  Thats helping Mizzou immensely this year.  Post matchups will really determine their run in the tourney and should be fun to watch

Perry Jones?
Title: Re: #22
Post by: sys on January 23, 2012, 01:14:33 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.

they shoot like no one has ever shot in the history of college basketball.  shooting is the most important basketball skill.  much more important than being over 6'6".



my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Underdog Wildcat on January 23, 2012, 01:18:24 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.

they shoot like no one has ever shot in history of college basketball.  shooting is the most important basketball skill.  much more important than being over 6'6".



my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.

You make a valid point, shooting, handling, passing, all vital and can't be underestimated - but I tell you what, I take a 6'8" David Hoskins over a 6'4" David Hoskins any day of the week.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: ChiComCat on January 23, 2012, 01:21:35 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.
I don't think our conference has as strong of post players in years past.  T-Rob is up there, Ellis is pretty good but just doesn't seem aggressive enough.  Thats helping Mizzou immensely this year.  Post matchups will really determine their run in the tourney and should be fun to watch

Perry Jones?

Yea, my bad
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Underdog Wildcat on January 23, 2012, 01:26:19 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.
I don't think our conference has as strong of post players in years past.  T-Rob is up there, Ellis is pretty good but just doesn't seem aggressive enough.  Thats helping Mizzou immensely this year.  Post matchups will really determine their run in the tourney and should be fun to watch

Perry Jones?


IYea, my bad

 :thumbs:

I do agree with you, he has good touch around the rim and can shoot it well out to 18 ft, tremendous athleticism for his size and good BBIQ,  just doesn't appear to be the toughest player in the world.

It seems like every other game, he has a brush with a "season ending injury" only to miraculously recover a few minutes later. Don't get me wrong, I'd take him in a heartbeat but wouldn't necessarily call him the full package just yet.

Title: Re: #22
Post by: theKSU on January 23, 2012, 01:29:08 PM
Keiton Page would be better if he were taller. 
Title: Re: #22
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 23, 2012, 01:30:27 PM
Its still hard for me to completely believe in Missouri, but outside of being destroyed by K-State (us!) they have been solid and have several good wins. With those wins and an 18-1 record, its hard not to put them at #2 right now. They may not finish there, but they will likely be a Top 10 team even at the end of the year.

they shoot like no one has ever shot in the history of college basketball.  shooting is the most important basketball skill.  much more important than being over 6'6".



my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
This is so true. I'm tall and I still suck, because I don't have a consistent jump shot. Size is just one of the many features a basketball player needs to be successful. Southwell sums this up pretty well.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: sys on January 23, 2012, 01:32:48 PM
I do agree with you, he has good touch around the rim and can shoot it well out to 18 ft, tremendous athleticism for his size and good BBIQ,  just doesn't appear to be the toughest player in the world.

It seems like every other game, he has a brush with a "season ending injury" only to miraculously recover a few minutes later. Don't get me wrong, I'd take him in a heartbeat but wouldn't necessarily call him the full package just yet.

he's a little reluctant to rebound, but if he played for a more forceful coach, i'm sure that'd be solved.  other than that, he's just a complementary player by nature.  he'll be fantastic in the nba, paired with a couple of ball dominant stars.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kitten_mittons on January 23, 2012, 01:45:56 PM
my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
This could be true.  A lot of kids that went to small high schools that were like 6'3" would have probably been C or PF.  Which means they practiced as a C or PF their whole high school career.  Maybe if their coach would have had them play the 1 or 2 they could have had better ball skills and shooting skills rather than pounding the block against other 6'3" small town C or PF.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: CNS on January 23, 2012, 02:09:06 PM
my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
This could be true.  A lot of kids that went to small high schools that were like 6'3" would have probably been C or PF.  Which means they practiced as a C or PF their whole high school career.  Maybe if their coach would have had them play the 1 or 2 they could have had better ball skills and shooting skills rather than pounding the block against other 6'3" small town C or PF.

This is the best thing that AAU has done.

At 6'-5" I was the second tallest kid that ever hit the court in my HS league for 4 yrs in 4-A KS ball.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Fuktard on January 23, 2012, 04:18:41 PM
LOL at UCONN even being ranked, let alone in the top 20....losses to UCF, Tenn, Cin, Seton Hall and Rutgers....i guess they did have a great win (in OT, at home) over FSU.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: michigancat on January 23, 2012, 04:19:53 PM
my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
This could be true.  A lot of kids that went to small high schools that were like 6'3" would have probably been C or PF.  Which means they practiced as a C or PF their whole high school career.  Maybe if their coach would have had them play the 1 or 2 they could have had better ball skills and shooting skills rather than pounding the block against other 6'3" small town C or PF.

This is a big part of why I always say HS coaches are the rough ridin' worst. What you are describing happens at schools of every size.

Not sure how we got here, but I am not a fan of HS coaches.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: the KHAN! on January 23, 2012, 04:20:38 PM
Tallest kid on my Highschool team was 6 foot flat.  

Standing at 6'4 the coach asked me to go out. I told him to eff himself. In very nice terms. Too much running for my fat ass.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: WillieWatanabe on January 23, 2012, 04:54:51 PM
Tallest kid on my Highschool team was 6 foot flat. 

Standing at 6'4 the coach asked me to go out. I told him to eff himself. In very nice terms. Too much running for my fat ass.

where the hell is the midget population you are from??

there were at least 5 kids 6' 4' on my 1-A team.
Title: Re: Re: Re: #22
Post by: kitten_mittons on January 23, 2012, 05:03:51 PM
my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
This could be true.  A lot of kids that went to small high schools that were like 6'3" would have probably been C or PF.  Which means they practiced as a C or PF their whole high school career.  Maybe if their coach would have had them play the 1 or 2 they could have had better ball skills and shooting skills rather than pounding the block against other 6'3" small town C or PF.

This is a big part of why I always say HS coaches are the rough ridin' worst. What you are describing happens at schools of every size.

Not sure how we got here, but I am not a fan of HS coaches.

That's why people say if they were taller they'd be good.  Because they are 6 foot with a post game.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: mcmwcat on January 23, 2012, 05:11:10 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/state_of_the_game_2011/

even if scoring is down it doesn't mean the talent is down.  maybe we are just in a phase of college hoops where a majority of college coaches are stressing defense over offense. 
Title: Re: #22
Post by: mcmwcat on January 23, 2012, 05:21:00 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/state_of_the_game_2011/

even if scoring is down it doesn't mean the talent is down.  maybe we are just in a phase of college hoops where a majority of college coaches are stressing defense over offense. 

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkenpom.com%2Fimages%2Ftrends.png&hash=cd6f5de54b796ab3addbfb4ecc62f64846acf564)
Title: Re: #22
Post by: SdK on January 23, 2012, 06:02:47 PM
my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
This could be true.  A lot of kids that went to small high schools that were like 6'3" would have probably been C or PF.  Which means they practiced as a C or PF their whole high school career.  Maybe if their coach would have had them play the 1 or 2 they could have had better ball skills and shooting skills rather than pounding the block against other 6'3" small town C or PF.


Or a 5'11 4!!!!  :shakesfist: :shakesfist: :shakesfist:


The tallest guy we had pretty much all through my HS days was 6'1 and that may have been pushing it. Our whole team was between 5'10 and 6'1. Not that I would have been an all star anyway, but coming up playing the 4 spot at 5'11 didn't do anything for my three point shooting and ball handling. I can bang with people downlow better than some bigger than  me though.
Title: Re: Re: #22
Post by: 8manpick on January 23, 2012, 06:12:09 PM
So college basketball is down overall in a year that several top draft prospects returned because of the uncertainty of the NBA season? That's just absolute bullshit.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Dub on January 23, 2012, 06:57:50 PM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: bigwillie20 on January 23, 2012, 07:35:30 PM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.

So did we, and we were 2A.  I was the smallest on the varsity roster at 5'11.  Wish we could have played some of your guys' midget teams.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: michigancat on January 23, 2012, 07:39:44 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/state_of_the_game_2011/

even if scoring is down it doesn't mean the talent is down.  maybe we are just in a phase of college hoops where a majority of college coaches are stressing defense over offense.  

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkenpom.com%2Fimages%2Ftrends.png&hash=cd6f5de54b796ab3addbfb4ecc62f64846acf564)

Pace numbers are crazy in the 60's.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kso_FAN on January 23, 2012, 07:42:20 PM
such a weird thing, i feel like we suck so much of the time and we're still ranked.

college basketball is way down this year like this every year

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/state_of_the_game_2011/

even if scoring is down it doesn't mean the talent is down.  maybe we are just in a phase of college hoops where a majority of college coaches are stressing defense over offense. 

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkenpom.com%2Fimages%2Ftrends.png&hash=cd6f5de54b796ab3addbfb4ecc62f64846acf564)

Pace numbers are crazy in the 60's.

Yes, this surprised me.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Skipper44 on January 23, 2012, 08:33:37 PM
pace fell off a cliff, right after the NCAA outlawed the dunk -  why run when you can't  :alleyoop:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: kougar24 on January 23, 2012, 08:50:23 PM
my apologies to all you under 6'6" retards that told yourselves you'd be good if you were taller.  you'd have been good if you'd had skills.
This could be true.  A lot of kids that went to small high schools that were like 6'3" would have probably been C or PF.  Which means they practiced as a C or PF their whole high school career.  Maybe if their coach would have had them play the 1 or 2 they could have had better ball skills and shooting skills rather than pounding the block against other 6'3" small town C or PF.

This is a big part of why I always say HS coaches are the rough ridin' worst. What you are describing happens at schools of every size.

Not sure how we got here, but I am not a fan of HS coaches.

Isn't _FAN a HS coach? :eek:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 24, 2012, 08:28:12 AM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.

So did we, and we were 2A.  I was the smallest on the varsity roster at 5'11.  Wish we could have played some of your guys' midget teams.

If you really did play 2A ball, then you played at least 15 "midget teams" every year.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Kaiser Soze on January 24, 2012, 01:26:35 PM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.

So did we, and we were 2A.  I was the smallest on the varsity roster at 5'11.  Wish we could have played some of your guys' midget teams.

Name change to mediumwillie20?
Title: Re: #22
Post by: bigwillie20 on January 24, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.

So did we, and we were 2A.  I was the smallest on the varsity roster at 5'11.  Wish we could have played some of your guys' midget teams.

Name change to mediumwillie20?

I've always thought of myself as short  :dunno:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 24, 2012, 01:29:15 PM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.

So did we, and we were 2A.  I was the smallest on the varsity roster at 5'11.  Wish we could have played some of your guys' midget teams.
I would have swatted the crap out of you bigwillie, swatted the crap.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: CNS on January 24, 2012, 01:30:44 PM
Fanning is planning a block party with the rest of the swat team.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 24, 2012, 01:32:05 PM
Fanning is planning a block party with the rest of the swat team.
  :thumbs:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Kaiser Soze on January 24, 2012, 01:32:59 PM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.

So did we, and we were 2A.  I was the smallest on the varsity roster at 5'11.  Wish we could have played some of your guys' midget teams.

Name change to mediumwillie20?

I've always thought of myself as short  :dunno:

Then you're not really 5'11".   :dunno:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: bigwillie20 on January 24, 2012, 01:34:24 PM
Guess all the tall people are from the city, I didn't play but we had at least 3 people over 6'6" just from my grade.

So did we, and we were 2A.  I was the smallest on the varsity roster at 5'11.  Wish we could have played some of your guys' midget teams.

Name change to mediumwillie20?

I've always thought of myself as short  :dunno:

Then you're not really 5'11".   :dunno:

 :dubious:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 24, 2012, 01:35:46 PM
Tallest kid on my Highschool team was 6 foot flat.  

Standing at 6'4 the coach asked me to go out. I told him to eff himself. In very nice terms. Too much running for my fat ass.

After this you should have put on a dunk show, power moves, box outs etc. in PE in front of him but then told him you only play for the game.  Not for recognition and then tossed him the ball.
Title: Re: #22
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 24, 2012, 02:03:04 PM
Tallest kid on my Highschool team was 6 foot flat.  

Standing at 6'4 the coach asked me to go out. I told him to eff himself. In very nice terms. Too much running for my fat ass.

After this you should have put on a dunk show, power moves, box outs etc. in PE in front of him but then told him you only play for the game.  Not for recognition and then tossed him the ball.
  :lol:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Lucas Scoopsalot on January 25, 2012, 03:03:09 PM
 :opcat:
Title: Re: #22
Post by: Fedor on January 25, 2012, 03:30:36 PM
Tallest kid on my Highschool team was 6 foot flat.  

Standing at 6'4 the coach asked me to go out. I told him to eff himself. In very nice terms. Too much running for my fat ass.

After this you should have put on a dunk show, power moves, box outs etc. in PE in front of him but then told him you only play for the game.  Not for recognition and then tossed him the ball.
  :lol:
Homey can't dunk.