Next 4 Games

[michigancat]

Sports psychology is absurd.

For the most part, I would agree. But since you bring up "science", do you have any studies from sports psychologists that would support your initial suggestion that events from 25 years ago will affect Saturday's game against Baylor?

Since we're talking about science.

[pissclams]

Sports psychology is absurd.

For the most part, I would agree. But since you bring up "science", do you have any studies from sports psychologists that would support your initial suggestion that events from 25 years ago will affect Saturday's game against Baylor?

Since we're talking about science.

photosynthesis 

[wabash909]

Sports psychology is absurd.

For the most part, I would agree. But since you bring up "science", do you have any studies from sports psychologists that would support your initial suggestion that events from 25 years ago will affect Saturday's game against Baylor?

Since we're talking about science.

I'm not talking about an isolated event.  I'm talking about repeated trends.

I'm talking about things like losing 46 out of 49 games to your in-state rival and challenging a notion as absurd that there would be no psychological affect bearing upon our athletes that affects their performance and outcome in games today.  That it's absolutely absurd to believe there isn't a mental intimidation factor that impacts our performance stemming from years of losing that has an affect today.

Dramatically changing the losing psychological mindset from the one ingrained during the prior 20 years of Altman/Asbury/Wooldridge was of the best things about the Huggins/Martin era.  That's what the culture of toughness was all about.  We've made a lot of strides, but still have shown the mental strength to achieve that breakthrough that will allow this program to take the next step forward.  Maybe this year will be different, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[pissclams]

Sports psychology is absurd.

For the most part, I would agree. But since you bring up "science", do you have any studies from sports psychologists that would support your initial suggestion that events from 25 years ago will affect Saturday's game against Baylor?

Since we're talking about science.

q) science

a) the Krebs cycle

[MakeItRain]

Sports psychology is absurd.

For the most part, I would agree. But since you bring up "science", do you have any studies from sports psychologists that would support your initial suggestion that events from 25 years ago will affect Saturday's game against Baylor?

Since we're talking about science.

I'm not talking about an isolated event.  I'm talking about repeated trends.

I'm talking about things like losing 46 out of 49 games to your in-state rival and challenging a notion as absurd that there would be no psychological affect bearing upon our athletes that affects their performance and outcome in games today.  That it's absolutely absurd to believe there isn't a mental intimidation factor that impacts our performance stemming from years of losing that has an affect today.

Dramatically changing the losing psychological mindset from the one ingrained during the prior 20 years of Altman/Asbury/Wooldridge was of the best things about the Huggins/Martin era.  That's what the culture of toughness was all about.  We've made a lot of strides, but still have shown the mental strength to achieve that breakthrough that will allow this program to take the next step forward.  Maybe this year will be different, but I'll believe it when I see it.

So for the sake of this conversation we're ignoring that this group of players has either met or exceeded expectations for the last three or four years? Is that what we're gonna do?

[8manpick]

Thinking that what Pervis Pasco and David Hoskins did has any impact on this current team's performance is insane.

[MakeItRain]

Thinking that what Pervis Pasco and David Hoskins did has any impact on this current team's performance is insane.

Man I wish we had either of those guys.

[Skipper44]

I will say the 25 years of domination plays a larger role on KU's players than it does on KState's. 

It is not as much a factor now that KSU has a solid program, but in the Wooldridge years I believe the streak made it much easier for KU players to not overlook the game and come in more focused than they would for games at other similar programs (Nebraska's ability to win  a couple of times during the big 12 era for example). 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Sports psychology is absurd.

Even if we accept your line of thought here as fact we would also have to accept that we're dealing with 25 years of choking when we all know that isn't the case. Actually this group of players collectively has consistently exceeded expectations.

Well, to be fair, the preseason expectations set by the media for this group of players were ridiculously low.

[wabash909]

Sports psychology is absurd.

For the most part, I would agree. But since you bring up "science", do you have any studies from sports psychologists that would support your initial suggestion that events from 25 years ago will affect Saturday's game against Baylor?

Since we're talking about science.

I'm not talking about an isolated event.  I'm talking about repeated trends.

I'm talking about things like losing 46 out of 49 games to your in-state rival and challenging a notion as absurd that there would be no psychological affect bearing upon our athletes that affects their performance and outcome in games today.  That it's absolutely absurd to believe there isn't a mental intimidation factor that impacts our performance stemming from years of losing that has an affect today.

Dramatically changing the losing psychological mindset from the one ingrained during the prior 20 years of Altman/Asbury/Wooldridge was of the best things about the Huggins/Martin era.  That's what the culture of toughness was all about.  We've made a lot of strides, but still have shown the mental strength to achieve that breakthrough that will allow this program to take the next step forward.  Maybe this year will be different, but I'll believe it when I see it.

So for the sake of this conversation we're ignoring that this group of players has either met or exceeded expectations for the last three or four years? Is that what we're gonna do?

We've been in this position before.  We were the pre-season #3 in the country in 2011 and conference title favorites, got our asses kicked up and down the court by Duke to close out the non-con and then proceeded to then pissed away any shot at the Big12 title with the dreadful start to conference play that tarnished that season.

In a down league, (and a down KU team) I though this team would compete for league title this year.  That was my personal expectation.  They are senior led and perform well on the road (mostly).  My point is I'll believe it when I see a season without the inexplicable two or three losses we are accustomed to that prevent us from reaching our full potential. 

[wetwillie]

Has wabash become the new sonofdaxjones? Stay tuned to find out.

[MakeItRain]

Sports psychology is absurd.

For the most part, I would agree. But since you bring up "science", do you have any studies from sports psychologists that would support your initial suggestion that events from 25 years ago will affect Saturday's game against Baylor?

Since we're talking about science.

I'm not talking about an isolated event.  I'm talking about repeated trends.

I'm talking about things like losing 46 out of 49 games to your in-state rival and challenging a notion as absurd that there would be no psychological affect bearing upon our athletes that affects their performance and outcome in games today.  That it's absolutely absurd to believe there isn't a mental intimidation factor that impacts our performance stemming from years of losing that has an affect today.

Dramatically changing the losing psychological mindset from the one ingrained during the prior 20 years of Altman/Asbury/Wooldridge was of the best things about the Huggins/Martin era.  That's what the culture of toughness was all about.  We've made a lot of strides, but still have shown the mental strength to achieve that breakthrough that will allow this program to take the next step forward.  Maybe this year will be different, but I'll believe it when I see it.

So for the sake of this conversation we're ignoring that this group of players has either met or exceeded expectations for the last three or four years? Is that what we're gonna do?

We've been in this position before.  We were the pre-season #3 in the country in 2011 and conference title favorites, got our asses kicked up and down the court by Duke to close out the non-con and then proceeded to then pissed away any shot at the Big12 title with the dreadful start to conference play that tarnished that season.

In a down league, (and a down KU team) I though this team would compete for league title this year.  That was my personal expectation.  They are senior led and perform well on the road (mostly).  My point is I'll believe it when I see a season without the inexplicable two or three losses we are accustomed to that prevent us from reaching our full potential.

That was 2010 and that Duke team we lost to was #1 in the country at the time of that game and had at least 3 NBA draft picks on it with one of those players being a NBA all-star.

That down KU team entered the tournament 32-2 and was the #2 team in the country with 4 first round draft picks.

Interested to see how you spin this point.

[Belvis Noland]

In a down league, (and a down KU team) I though this team would compete for league title this year.  That was my personal expectation.  They are senior led and perform well on the road (mostly).  My point is I'll believe it when I see a season without the inexplicable two or three losses we are accustomed to that prevent us from reaching our full potential.

Fair enough.  But, we've avoided Frankuary, sitting at 8-3 in Conference.  If you thought this team would compete for a league title this year, you've gotten what you expected. 

Maybe we'll crap ourselves and go .500 down the stretch,  who knows.  I don't think so b/c we're pretty good, and aside from Baylorx2 and OSUx1, our upcoming slate is pretty pud. 

[AppleJack]

2-2

[wabash909]

That was 2010 and that Duke team we lost to was #1 in the country at the time of that game and had at least 3 NBA draft picks on it with one of those players being a NBA all-star.

That down KU team entered the tournament 32-2 and was the #2 team in the country with 4 first round draft picks.

Interested to see how you spin this point.

It was the 2010-2011 season and K-State was the pre-season selection to win the Big XII Conference Title.  That is a fact. 

So, how you're stating this current group has met or exceeded expectations of any team over the last three or four years, I have no idea.  We haven't accomplished anything yet.

And the point is not about losing to a good Duke team.  The point is we lost a huge game and then completely derailed the start of conference play, costing us any chance of a league title that year.  And I make that point, because we need to prevent the disappointment from a similar KU loss this year from then compounding in a couple bad losses during this critical upcoming stretch.

[MakeItRain]

The media was wrong for picking that 2010-11 team to win the conference. When Withey gets drafted he will be the 6th player off that KU team to get drafted, if Releford gets drafted he'll be 7. It's not a choke if you dont outperform the better team. But this isn't about individual games or teams, you said

If the last 30 years have taught us anything, this program isn't built to live up to lofty expectations.

I'm simply stating this isn't true. These players on this roster have spent the previous 2-3 outperforming reasonable expectations. This doesn't mean they won't puke all over their shoes now, but if they do it won't be because these players have a history of choking.