ESPN's evaluator of college football odds apparently read this board..

[The Manhatter]

and is laughing at the "luck" comments regarding the 2011 season:

Big 12

Oklahoma Sooners: +115
 Texas Longhorns: +400
 TCU Horned Frogs: +550
 West Virginia Mountaineers: +575
 Kansas State Wildcats: +1100



As we've said many times before, it's not smoke and mirrors if it's sustainable. Kansas State is once again dismissed by those whose predictions are driven primarily by analysis of talent or statistics. The sport's modern media emphasizes the player, but college football is still a coaches' game. LHC Bill Snyder's teams consistently excel at things that are usually (and often correctly) dismissed as signs of good fortune.
 


The Wildcats relied heavily on positive markers in areas like turnover margin, yards-per-point, third-down conversion rate and nonoffensive scoring en route to a 10-win season last year. The Cats' long-term track record in these areas under Snyder suggests that winning a half-dozen games per year despite being outgained is a repeatable norm, not an outlier that's a harbinger of an impending fall. This is a senior-dominated squad in a league of vulnerable opponents. As we mentioned last year in looking ahead to 2012, Kansas State is a true favorite in the Big 12, and at 11:1 the best bet on the futures board this offseason.
 


The four teams ahead of the Wildcats are all clocking in at 6:1 or lower. Two of them, TCU and West Virginia, are changing leagues -- not typically a recipe for instant success. Additionally, TCU is by far the least experienced team among the contenders, while West Virginia has by far the least experienced coaching staff. Oklahoma is comfortable wearing the favorite's mantle and could certainly wind up as a national contender, but at barely better than even money we're just not interested in a team with this much offseason turmoil, attrition and staff turnover.
 


Mack Brown has Texas back on track, thanks largely to two excellent coordinator hires, and this Longhorns defense should be the conference's best. Still, the team is in just the second year of new schemes and lacks the experience and leadership on the offensive side of the ball to fulfill the coaches' vision of the Horns' new offensive identity just yet.

[Panjandrum]

I am incredibly happy we have Texas at home.

[p1k3]

Man I hope the too cool for schoolers dont open this thread.....

[Rage Against the McKee]

I am incredibly happy we have Texas at home.

Yes. If we didn't beat them every year, I would be pretty certain that we are going to lose that game.

[_33]

Man I hope the too cool for schoolers dont open this thread.....

Shut up stupid.

[CHONGS]

i just don't understand why it's "bad luck" when we have bad turnovers and seasons like 2004-2005 and to an extent  2008-2009 and "good coaching" when the breaks go our way.  It's the same coach.  (Well yes I do understand, its human nature to spin things). It's not a crime or a shot against Bill or KSU to acknowlegde that we had good fortune last year that went beyond coaching.

[ChiComCat]

i just don't understand why it's "bad luck" when we have bad turnovers and seasons like 2004-2005 and to an extent  2008-2009 and "good coaching" when the breaks go our way.  It's the same coach.  (Well yes I do understand, its human nature to spin things). It's not a crime or a shot against Bill or KSU to acknowlegde that we had good fortune last year that went beyond coaching.

We were lucky and well coached, imo. It's an outlier to go 9-1 in close games, but I don't think 7-3 or 6-4 in those games would be particularly "lucky."
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[CHONGS]

i agree it was both good coaching and good fortune, but I can't blame people for being more skeptical than we are

[michigancat]

Sarah Phillips?

[Dr Rick Daris]

Sarah Phillips?

  oh man, what ever became of that?


also i think it's pretty obvious that snyds is a good coach and that kstate got lucky last year.

[Rage Against the McKee]

i just don't understand why it's "bad luck" when we have bad turnovers and seasons like 2004-2005 and to an extent  2008-2009 and "good coaching" when the breaks go our way.  It's the same coach.  (Well yes I do understand, its human nature to spin things). It's not a crime or a shot against Bill or KSU to acknowlegde that we had good fortune last year that went beyond coaching.

I don't like to attribute luck to anything. The 2004 and 2005 teams were just dogshit teams that were low on talent. If this team fails to win as many games as last year's team, it won't be because they are a better team that just didn't get as many breaks. It will be because they are a worse team.

[The Manhatter]

i just don't understand why it's "bad luck" when we have bad turnovers and seasons like 2004-2005 and to an extent  2008-2009 and "good coaching" when the breaks go our way.  It's the same coach.  (Well yes I do understand, its human nature to spin things). It's not a crime or a shot against Bill or KSU to acknowlegde that we had good fortune last year that went beyond coaching.

I don't like to attribute luck to anything. The 2004 and 2005 teams were just dogshit teams that were low on talent. If this team fails to win as many games as last year's team, it won't be because they are a better team that just didn't get as many breaks. It will be because they are a worse team.

uh, yeah.  our team last year certainly had more talent than 2004 and 2005 and loads more in leadership.

[Rage Against the McKee]

i just don't understand why it's "bad luck" when we have bad turnovers and seasons like 2004-2005 and to an extent  2008-2009 and "good coaching" when the breaks go our way.  It's the same coach.  (Well yes I do understand, its human nature to spin things). It's not a crime or a shot against Bill or KSU to acknowlegde that we had good fortune last year that went beyond coaching.

I don't like to attribute luck to anything. The 2004 and 2005 teams were just dogshit teams that were low on talent. If this team fails to win as many games as last year's team, it won't be because they are a better team that just didn't get as many breaks. It will be because they are a worse team.

uh, yeah.  our team last year certainly had more talent than 2004 and 2005 and loads more in leadership.

Agreed. I've never heard anybody say that those teams were capable of 10 wins if not for a few bad breaks. There were a few solid players on those teams, but for the most part, they were just awful.

[Skipper44]

Lack of good QB play has been the biggest factor in garbage seasons, imo.  More often than not, OB puts the team in position to make winning plays but it is always up to the QB to execute.

[KITNfury]

The author of that ESPN article was on 810 the other day with petro and said we were co favorites to win the confy. The podcast is available.

[hemmy]

i just don't understand why it's "bad luck" when we have bad turnovers and seasons like 2004-2005 and to an extent  2008-2009 and "good coaching" when the breaks go our way.  It's the same coach.  (Well yes I do understand, its human nature to spin things). It's not a crime or a shot against Bill or KSU to acknowlegde that we had good fortune last year that went beyond coaching.

Injuries, etc.