In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place for discussion for Kansas athletics
The place to talk Kansas football and recruiting
The place for off topic discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Can't just walk out there and roll people because of your jersey.
It is but ISU is going to bother a lot of people with their style of play. This is the type of team we really need to hope to avoid in the tourney. It is just not a great match up for us. ISU will have a few games they will lose by a ton when those shots are not falling as well but with as many as they put up they can beat just about anyone and Fred is a very good tactical coach.
It was amusing to watch the back and forth of the game. When we switched Young onto the big three-point shooting frutcake they had then ISU started posting him but not really with the intention to score but knowing that Withey would start to cheat in and generate a two on one if they could throw it over the top. It was a very interesting game tactically.
We got in trouble when we got stupid offensively for a stretch. I am happy because I think we learned one important lesson. When shots are not falling the offense needs to run through McLemore to a larger extent. Tharpe had his problems tonight but our worst offensive stretches tonight (and this year IMHO) are when EJ starts hunting for threes. You can see him doing it and it really never needs to be the case.
And had we lost I would have left this alone but...
Move the flipping 3 point line back. I simply can't take the plethora of teams with middle of the road talent and good but not great shooters who can make a living at that line. There are too many guys who have a huge impact on the college game and can't shoot a lick at the NBA level when it moves back to that distance. Plus I think it would open up the floor a bit as well.
They exposed up with their offensive rebounding, especially late in the game. I know that is one of Bills biggest peeves. Kevin lost his man numerous times that should have cost us the game.
I'd be fine with getting rid of the three point line period. It will never happen because it keeps inferior teams in games, creating excitement, uncertainty, and upsets. UCLA was so dominant in the 60s and 70s for a lot of reasons, and there were more repeat champions with the NPOY for more reasons than "kids stayed four years back then." While the regional bias of tournament seeding greatly assisted UCLA on its path to the Final Four, they were also usually the best team, and in those years the "best" team won more often than not because upset chances were just smaller. Smaller upset chances came from less talent, less spread of talent, fewer high quality coaches, and no "great equalizer" known as the three-point shot. If you want to reward the best teams, most hard work, and best schemes you dump the three point line altogether. :)
Now, that's never going to happen, so moving it back is the only realistic option. Move. It. Back. YESTERDAY!
Move it back. It's too close. Make it where you have to be a truly good shooter to make it consistently. That said they were wide open all night long and really exposed Kansas. Kudos to Iowa St for coming out with a game plan and executing. Still can't believe the Hawks pulled it out.
Edit: As far as type of team that is a bad match up I agree that a team that can hit from all over the court with multiple positions is not good. I think KU's worst nightmare come March is having VCU in their bracket. Not only with the media talk that up, but they are the exact team KU will struggle with and they are very good.
This post was edited by Baumer 18 months ago
I actually don't think our 3-point defense was that bad and neither did Self. They were below their season average and that was after starting red hot in the first few minutes of the game. Hell, we even kept them off the offensive glass better than anyone else they played this year. That being said it seems like all their offensive rebounds were incredibly timely during that game.
I agree with BigJay. I thought ISU did a good job of hitting their open shots, but I didn't think they had too many truly open ones, especially after the way Niang started. Ben hit contested shots for us, and ISU hit some contested shots as well. I didn't think we were exceptional at closing out, but I also didn't think we were terrible.
Also, we did as good a job as anyone has at keeping them off the offensive glass, the offensive rebounds just felt worse last night because the timing of them was brutal and agonizing.
College Basketball is not going to have more mass appeal by making upsets less likely. I have no problem with moving the 3 point line back, but is it going to expand the sport? no... it might make it more apealing to the purists but the casual watcher wants the excitement of an upset... Just like I love to watch UNC, Dook or UK get beat... other fans want to watch KU get beat because it just doesn't happen too often.
Live to love, love to live
I don't know that I agree with that 100% because I think one of the consequences of moving the line back is going to be a lot more room to drive the ball and see athletic players make plays.
I would make three major rules changes.
1. Add some rules on defensive alignment like they have in the NBA to open the floor up a bit.
2. Expand the no charge circle.
3. Move the three point line back.
My major goal is to create more floor spacing for everyone and encourage aggressive plays at the rim.
This I can agree with... and as Aaron pointed out... the guys/teams with the most talent are the ones who are going to win the games, but they're also the ones who are going to sell your product.. It will also make the players who are going to make the league more NBA ready. A casual fan might follow the games closer just to see player X and Y scoring 30+ points and abusing defenders. But that just further separates the haves from the have nots. but we already kinda have that don't we?
This post was edited by Tralfaz 18 months ago
As far as a wakeup call I would have thought the Temple game would have given them a hint.
Listening to Walton last night (I missed tonight by 2min), he suggested shortening the shot clock. Didn't mention anything specific. I think the NBA clock is too short at 24 sec. Would 30 sec have a significant impact on the game?
The biggest impact of the shot clock would be in close game situations. Given the average number of possessions in each game most teams are not coming close to using the shot clock every possession. The most drastic impact of a 24 second shot clock is that with 3 minutes left there are 7.5 possessions at minimum instead of 5. More realistically if I play for a 12 second possession and they play it out I am guaranteed about 5 possessions of the basketball (assuming I can rebound misses) vs 3 or so. Right now a 7 point lead with 3 to go is pretty tough. With NBA shot clocks it is not nearly as big of a deal.
Changing to 30 seconds would do very little in my view.
The interesting thing, though, is that while people claim to love upsets and underdogs, the Final Fours that don't have the best teams and high-quality matchups in them (i.e., at least a couple of 1 seeds and no seeds lower than 5) are 1) exceptionally poorly played and 2) draw even more exceptionally poor ratings. The 2011 Final Four ratings were abhorrent, and that was the "year of the upset." The ratings for what were theoretically the best Final Four matchups ever in 2008 were spectacular, if I recall.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports