Texas

[Brooky03]

Why is this team ranked? Seriously. I know they beat a football school recently who seems decent at basketball this year, but Texas has been ranked for a while now. Why are they a top 25 team with 10 losses while we're 'on the bubble'? It's not like the Big 12 is a thing.

 

[JAXCUSE]

Well, they did take UNC...
Actually, I think Texas is playing pretty good ball right now...
Smart is an effective coach...

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Well, they did take UNC...
Actually, I think Texas is playing pretty good ball right now...
Smart is an effective coach...

I fully expect Texas to win tonight.

 

[MSOrange]

I fully expect Texas to win tonight.

You think KU will blow a 20 point lead? It could happen on the road I guess, but I'm not so sure.

 

[orangehomer]

i think this might be a kansas year. they are good and the other blue bloods are down.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

You think KU will blow a 20 point lead? It could happen on the road I guess, but I'm not so sure.

No, I didn't know the score when I posted it. :bat:
But if they come back do I look like a genius.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

i think this might be a kansas year. they are good and the other blue bloods are down.

You know what I don't get. ESPN spends a lot of hot air spouting off about how Kansas has won or tied for 12 straight Big 12 championships and compares that team to John Wooden and UCLA. Good for Kansas. But you still have a long way to go until you can be rightfully compared to UCLA.

 

[pearl31]

I fully expect Texas to win tonight.

if by win you meant not get beat by more than 30 - then yes, you were correct

 

[STEVEHOLT]

You know what I don't get. ESPN spends a lot of hot air spouting off about how Kansas has won or tied for 12 straight Big 12 championships and compares that team to John Wooden and UCLA. Good for Kansas. But you still have a long way to go until you can be rightfully compared to UCLA.

UCLA was good..damn good..but when they won all those championships there were like 2 teams in the tourney

 

[orangecuse]

UCLA was good..damn good..but when they won all those championships there were like 2 teams in the tourney

Agree.

An argument could be made about Wooden as well. I'm not implying he wasn't a good coach, but he coached in an era when there was far less competition for the best players, and he consistently enjoyed the creme (of the crop) as well as the cherry on top when it came to recruits. In my opinion, you can also put Phil Jackson in that same good fortune.

 

[Knicks411]

Agree.

An argument could be made about Wooden as well. I'm not implying he wasn't a good coach, but he coached in an era when there was far less competition for the best players, and he consistently enjoyed the creme (of the crop) as well as the cherry on top when it came to recruits. In my opinion, you can also put Phil Jackson in that same good fortune.

Jackson had a great ability to bring together and control large personalities. He was also really good in the 94 season, with no MJ.

Texas has pretty good resume; I guess unless you decide the Big12 is nothing. I count ten wins against the Ken Pom top 50; we have 5.

 

[pfister1]

I don't know? Having won 12 consecutive regular season conference championships is certainly impressive, but for that level of dominance in a major conference, they sure do under perform in the post season. For all that regular season dominance just one NCAA championship and only two final fours during that span.

Maybe their conference bretheren are a bit intimidated by them - or their home court provides an overwhelming advantage?? Not sure what to make of them and their dominance of the Big 12.

 

[Knicks411]

I don't know? Having won 12 consecutive regular season conference championships is certainly impressive, but for that level of dominance in a major conference, they sure do under perform in the post season. For all that regular season dominance just one NCAA championship and only two final fours during that span.

Maybe their conference bretheren are a bit intimidated by them - or their home court provides an overwhelming advantage?? Not sure what to make of them and their dominance of the Big 12.

I think you can chalk a lot of the post season success, or lack thereof, to some bad luck. It's a single elimination tournament, anything can happen in a one off. You'd still expect a little bit more success though, I'll grant you that.

12 straight conference titles, meaning you displayed your excellence over 2 months, is pretty staggering. Gary Parrish had some good context yesterday; something like 3 other coaches have made the NCAA tournament in each of the last 12 years, let alone winning their league every year.

 

[orangecuse]

Jackson had a great ability to bring together and control large personalities. He was also really good in the 94 season, with no MJ.

Texas has pretty good resume; I guess unless you decide the Big12 is nothing. I count ten wins against the Ken Pom top 50; we have 5.

Jackson, imo, was the beneficiary of arguably having two of the best NBA players to ever play the game in MJ and Kobe...oh, Shaq too. I wasn't implying that Jackson wasn't a good coach, but I'm not one that holds him in such prestige. I didn't make any comment about Texas, Kansas or the Big 12...

 

[Knicks411]

Jackson, imo, was the beneficiary of arguably having two of the best NBA players to ever play the game in MJ and Kobe...oh, Shaq too. I wasn't implying that Jackson wasn't a good coach, but I'm not one that holds him in such prestige. I didn't make any comment about Texas, Kansas or the Big 12...

Sorry, I was responding to two comments at once.

Phil definitely benefited from great players (Shaq more than Kobe, but they were both awesome). But I think he should also get some credit for integrating a guy like Rodman into the second Bulls threepeat team without ruining the chemistry, from people Shaq and Kobe from killing each other for as long as they did, and for the job he did with the 94 bulls. Jordan was incredible in the late 80's, and before Jackson, they couldn't get past the Pistons.
I do wish he wanted his teams to take more 3's though...

 

[CorduroyG]

you gotta give phil credit for the 2000 lakers too. lakers had shaq and kobe for 3 years before phil and i think got swept out of the playoffs every year. granted kobe wasnt superstar kobe the first couple years but he did average 20ppg in 99 and spurs swept them. phil comes on board and they win 67 games and the title.

 

[orangecuse]

Sorry, I was responding to two comments at once.

Phil definitely benefited from great players (Shaq more than Kobe, but they were both awesome). But I think he should also get some credit for integrating a guy like Rodman into the second Bulls threepeat team without ruining the chemistry, from people Shaq and Kobe from killing each other for as long as they did, and for the job he did with the 94 bulls. Jordan was incredible in the late 80's, and before Jackson, they couldn't get past the Pistons.
I do wish he wanted his teams to take more 3's though...

No worries...he gets 'some' credit Though again, imo, he had a tremendous amount of good fortune, and, because of same, benefited historically as a result.